New term: typeStatus

[AaronWilton]

Definition: Code indicating the type status of the collection object. Comment: typeStatus has been placed in the HISPID namespace, even though it is available in Darwin Core, because our use is different. In contrast to Darwin Core, in HISPID typeStatus and typifiedName have been separated. Having typeStatus in the HISPID namespace allows us to transfer the type status including or excluding the typified name depending on what circumstances require.

[AaronWilton]

i propose the use of a different name for this property to differentiate from the DWC field (even though in a different name space may be confusing?)

nomenclaturalTypeStatus

[nielsklazenga]

Let's not. Keeping the term in the HISPID namespace, because our use is slightly different from Darwin Core is already being holier than the pope. Giving it a different property name is overshooting the mark. If you want to differentiate our use from the Darwin Core one, it is the 'status' bit that needs to be done something about. Adding the adjective 'nomenclatural' to do the differentiation is misleading, as the HISPID type status is not more nomenclatural than the Darwin Core one. If anything, In fact it is less nomenclatural, as it leaves the name out. I would just put the term back in the Darwin Core namespace.

[nielsklazenga]

I have been thinking a bit more about this and now think we shouldn't mint a HISPID term at all and just use dwc:typeStatus.

In Darwin Core whether you use just the type status name or also include the typified name depends on in what context you use typeStatus. If you use it in the Identification History extension, you would just use the type status name. When using typeStatus in the Occurrence core, I would include the typified name, but not everybody does. Since we already have hispid:typifiedName, we would also just include the type status name when using typeStatus in the Occurrence core.

[nielsklazenga]

The TDWG Ontology has terms for both the use of typeStatus as just the type of type, http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Specimen#typeStatus, and for typifiedName, http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/Specimen#typeForName. I propose to use those instead of minting our own.

The TDWG Ontology typeStatus term comes with a vocabulary: http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonName#NomenclaturalTypeTypeTerm.

[ben3000]

I'm in favour of reusing Darwin Core rather than implementing our own term, so long as the Darwin Core suits us.

[AaronWilton]

i agree Ben

[nielsklazenga]

So do I, but it it is a motherhood statement that has nothing in it to disagree with and has no bearing on the question at hand. It is the approach we have taken for every term. What we need to agree on here is whether the Darwin Core usage of the term works for us or not. Darwin Core usage, in the Occurrence core at least, is 'Holotype of Dicranum robustum Hook.f. and Wilson' (for example). If you want to split it up in type of type ('Holotype') and typified name ('Dicranum robustum Hook.f. and Wilson), you'll need other terms. I am perfectly happy with just the Darwin Core term. The HISPID term was added because other people wanted something different.

While in theory you can provide the type designation information in the Identification History extension, you cannot do that for data delivery to AVH (well, you could provide it that way, but it won't end up where you want it to). Even with the type designations in the Identification History extension you still need the current typeStatus in the Occurrence core, just like the current Identification, because, if type designations are identifications, they can be wrong as well, just like other determinations. There is no way to indicate in the DwC Identification History extension to indicate which identification is the current one and which one is the correct type designation.

[AaronWilton]

I personally do not like the fuzzy/multiple use of a single term. I like/see utility in the wider definition of the DWC term, but would like the more exact fields to be available (e.g., I think typeStatus against a strict vocabulary very useful for faceting)

[ben3000]

+1 Aaron.

[nielsklazenga]

+2. I think the other term, typifiedName or typeForName, is way more important, but will be happy to deliver the type of type as well.

That brings us back right where we started. This is exactly what we have been delivering to AVH for the last three years. The question remains whether to mint new identifiers (or qualified names) in the HISPID namespace, or use the terms from the TDWG ontology.

I was not advocating different use of the same term in different context, just saying that it happens. Treating nomenclatural type designations as identifications is what I would call fuzzy use of a single term.

Another consideration that needs to be made is that providers who are using the IPT can only use the Darwin Core term.

[AaronWilton]

Hobart 2015-10-23: Approved (dwc:typeStatus, tdwgvoc:typeStatus, typifiedName)

[AaronWilton]

Add examples, especially for the format for dwc:typeStatus

[nielsklazenga]

Hi Aaron, I am staying out of the RDF files while you are cleaning up. Here are some examples from AVH:

"HOLOTYPE of Boronia deanei subsp. acutifolia Duretto" [MEL 1058128A]

"ISOTYPE of Agapetes obtusata Sleumer" [CANB 10791.1]

"NEOTYPE of Delphyodon oliganthus K. Schum." [CANB 128144.1]

"SYNTYPE of Leucopogon hookeri Sond." [HO 3691]

"ISOTYPE of Babingtonia bidwillii A.R.Bean, fid. Walsh, N.G., 1999-10-05" [MEL 0272819A]

ABCD (or the GPI standard for that matter) doesn't allow for citation of protologues, so I don't have any of those.

[AaronWilton]

hmmm, given the following set of possible examples

        <skos:example>holotype</skos:example>
        <skos:example>http://hiscom.chah.org.au/hispid/vocabulary/type_status/holotype</skos:example>
        <skos:example>HOLOTYPE of Boronia deanei subsp. acutifolia Duretto</skos:example>
        <skos:example>ISOTYPE of Babingtonia bidwillii A.R.Bean, fid. Walsh, N.G., 1999-10-05</skos:example>

also given

typeStatus has been placed in the HISPID namespace, even though it is available in Darwin Core, because our use is different. In contrast to Darwin Core, in HISPID typeStatus and typifiedName have been separated. Having typeStatus in the HISPID namespace allows us to transfer the type status including or excluding the typified name depending on what circumstances require.

My question is: why do we have typeStatus in the HISPID name space that can either be only the status as per the vocabulary or include the typified name, when we could use the DWC namespace/concept for the latter? or is that too simplistic. I really struggle when I see the examples and the discussion above.

(a secondary question is when we use vocabs are we intending this to be a full URI or a unqualified text comparing example 1 and 2?)

PS - i know this is a can of worms, too much time between the discussions and getting this finalised

[nielsklazenga]

The first two examples are incorrect. They are not type status, but type of type. We have discussed this ad infinitum et nauseam. Just remove those two examples and stick with the ones I gave you.

[AaronWilton]

ahh yes! now the action note makes sense - we agreed to add the tdwgvoc field (as well as a typfiedName field, but retain dwc:typeStatus).

WRT the tdwgvoc field that whole vocabulary has been deprecated without replacement... in which case we could mint our own and move on...??

[AaronWilton]

done - please review and re-open if necessary.