Need more nomenclature support

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Via Steve in Issue #55. 
Comment from Gerry Moore - NRCS, Greensboro, NC <Gerry.Moore@gnb.usda.gov> 
during public comment:

It should be noted that there are different classes of homonyms when talking 
about nomenclature of all living things.

Some are perfectly legitimate and unavoidable when the names are governed by 
different Codes of nomenclature. For example there is a beetle genus Tribolium 
and a grass genus Tribolium. However,  homonyms governed by the same Code of 
nomenclature cannot be in use. Thus,  Rhynchospora pallida M.A.Curtis and 
Rhynchopsora pallida Steud. cannot both be used as the latter is an 
illegitimate later homonym that is not be taken up. 

Also citation of the author names would help in avoiding ambiguities but it 
would not solve the problem as sometimes the same author published the same 
name for different taxa. Linnaeus did it, for example: Mimosa cinera L. (Sp. 
Pl.: 517. 1753) and Mimosa cinera L. (Sp. Pl.: 520. 1753). Thus, homonyms are 
defined not as the same name published by different authors, but the same name 
with different types. Homonyms are usually published by different authors but 
not always.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by morris.bob on 3 Jun 2013 at 9:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

    Comment from Steve originally in Issue #55: I recognize that these are somewhat vexing problems.  What I'm not sure about is whether fixing them is in scope for Audubon Core.  For example, in the case where aggregation results in the inclusion of media bearing an illegitimate homonym, I think one could use the term dwc:acceptedNameUsage to note the currently accepted homonym in the image database.  However, it seems unlikely that this would be done often enough to consider it to be a term that AC would suggest for general use by media providers. 
    In the case of the issues where two different taxa are identified by the same generic epithet or where two homonyms have identical name strings and authors, it seems like an identifier for the name would be needed to completely disambiguate the homonyms.  This could be done using a term such as dwc:scientificNameID, but again, use of this term may be uncommon enough that it would not warrant placing it among the terms selected for inclusion in  Audubon Core.  
    How far to the limits of AC extend?  Does a problem noted by a single major provider warrant including the two terms dwc:acceptedNameUsage and dwc:scientificNameID as part of AC, or does AC just say that in cases like this the provider is welcome to add any terms from other vocabularies that the provider sees fit?

Original comment by morris.bob on 3 Jun 2013 at 9:30

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 3 Jun 2013 at 10:30

• Now blocking: Adopt Audubon Core 1.0 #3

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 9 Jun 2013 at 3:39

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 9 Jun 2013 at 3:40

• Now blocking: Address Public Comments #6

[GoogleCodeExporter]

If DwC can solve this problem, we should defer this for subsequent discussion 
once AC is adopted.  Such discussion would follow the regimen used for adding 
terms to DwC, and if enough people vote for it, we add it.

If DwC cannot solve it, then we wait until it can.

Resolving this as WontFis

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jul 2013 at 2:55

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jul 2013 at 3:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jul 2013 at 4:02

• Now blocking: dcterms:extent refines dc:format and dcterms:format. There is no dc:extent #81

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jul 2013 at 4:04

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:59

• Added labels: Type-Defect