-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change term - identifiedBy #492
Comments
Can I take this opportunity to also propose a change to the definition? I think a better definition would be something like:
(this is just my first shot at it) I think that the problem in the old definition that might make it seem that the term cannot be used in the context of an entire Event is that it also redefines what an Identification is. This is not necessary, as Identification is already defined in Darwin Core. I think it is a bad (re-) definition too, just never noticed it before. |
It would be great if we can get the definition of dwc:Identification cleaned up as well as part of this process. Proposals welcome. |
This might seem stupid, but it took me a while to figure out that the semi-colon was an example separator and the pipe was a separator in the example.
So this would just be a long list of unique names with no relevance to their order? |
Ordering of names is a general issue when dealing with groups of people and whatever is done here should also be done for |
The current definition of A definition which avoids this and is referencing the existing DwC terms, from my point of view, could be: dwc:identifiedBy == A relation that relates an instance of The usage notes could specify: (*) used as overarching term for person, group of persons, corporate entity |
One thing that I would add to @cboelling's definition is that it is possible that the identification might be done by a software agent, which I don't think would fall into "person, group of persons, or corporate entity", unless I'm misunderstanding "corporate entity". I'm not sure what the appropriate way of identifying such a software agent would be, but if we are fixing this term, we probably should work that out. |
I had a similar thought as @baskaufs . I think the term "agent" should be used consistently, and then qualified as needed, as something like "a person, defined group of persons, organization, electronic device, software, or other entity capable of asserting an organismal identification". I favor the more general term "organization" over "coporate entity". Dare I suggest that there ought to be a DwC-defined term for "Agent" (or perhaps even a Class?). In the old days we used the foaf schema as a general model, but I don't know if that's a "thing", or if there is some other extrnal entity that TDWG land has embraced (apologies for being out of the loop this past year, in case this is something already dealt with). |
Dublin Core has a class |
I like it! |
@cboelling 's "definition" does not actually tell us what the term means but merely describes how a defined term fits in a particular data model. Also, as @baskaufs's point about identifications by software is well taken and I agree with @deepreef's solution to the extent that we use 'agent' in the definition and describe what an 'agent' is elsewhere. I see now that @baskaufs and @deepreef already worked it out while I was writing this. |
Term change
Current Term definition: https://dwc.tdwg.org/list/#dwc_identifiedBy
Proposed attributes of the new term version (Please put actual changes to be implemented in bold and
strikethrough):James L. Patton
Theodore Pappenfuss | Robert Macey
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: