wiki-archive/twiki/data/DarwinCore/IdentificationQualifer.txt,v

head	1.7;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;
expand	@o@;


1.7
date	2008.03.16.14.00.56;	author JohnWieczorek;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.6;

1.6
date	2007.02.14.13.30.34;	author JohnWieczorek;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.5;

1.5
date	2006.10.23.18.48.32;	author StephenLong;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	2006.10.06.21.08.14;	author StephenLong;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2006.10.06.19.40.46;	author StephenLong;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2006.09.19.23.18.33;	author StephenLong;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2006.09.14.18.20.41;	author StephenLong;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.7
log
@none
@
text
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="JohnWieczorek" date="1205676056" format="1.1" reprev="1.7" version="1.7"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="DarwinCoreDraftStandard"}%
---++Element Description: Identification Qualifier
A brief phrase or a standard term ("cf.", "aff.") to qualify the identification of the organism when doubts have arisen as to its taxonomic identity (determination).   Examples: 1) For the determination "Quercus aff. agrifolia var. oxyadenia", !IdentificationQualifier would be "aff. agrifolia var. oxyadenia" with accompanying values "Quercus" in [[Genus]], "agrifolia" in SpecificEpithet, "oxyadenia" in [[InfraSpecificEpithet][InfraspecificEpithet]], and "var." in InfraspecificRank. 2) For the determination "Quercus agrifolia cf. var. oxyadenia", !IdentificationQualifier would be "cf. var. oxyadenia " with accompanying values "Quercus" in [[Genus]], "agrifolia" in SpecificEpithet, "oxyadenia" in [[InfraSpecificEpithet][InfraspecificEpithet]], and "var." in InfraspecificRank.

---+++ Comments 
Use the space below to make comments about this page. -- Main.StephenLong - 24 Aug 2006

------
%ICON{bubble}% *DwC element !IdentificationQualifier*
Posted by: Steven Ginzbarg [mailto:sginzbar@@biology.as.ua.edu]   Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005, 22:32:43

!IdentificationQualifier - "A standard term to qualify the identification of the organism when doubts have arisen as to its identity. Examples: 'cf.', 'aff.', 'subspecies in question'"

The examples either tell the nature of the doubt, "cf.", possibly this taxon, or "aff.", not this taxon but close, but not the rank in question, or they tell the rank in question but not the nature of the doubt. I would like to know both things. Which was it?

_Quercus_ aff. _agrifolia_ var. _oxyadenia_
_Quercus_ cf. _agrifolia_ var. _oxyadenia_
_Quercus agrifolia_ cf. var. _oxyadenia_

How about:

!IdentificationQualifier - "A standard term to qualify the identification of the organism when doubts have arisen as to its identity, followed by the rank in doubt. Examples: 'aff. species' for _Quercus_ aff. _agrifolia_ var. _oxyadenia_; 'cf. variety' for _Quercus agrifolia_ cf. var. _oxyadenia_."

------
<DL>
<DD>%ICON{bubble}% *Re: !DwC element !IdentificationQualifer*
Posted by: Steven Ginzbarg [mailto:sginzbar@@biology.as.ua.edu]   Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005, 04:25:17

... or better, two elements

!IdentificationQualifier - "A standard term to qualify the identification of the organism when doubts have arisen as to its identity. Examples: 'cf.', 'aff.'"

!TaxonomicRankQualified - "The taxonomic rank in doubt. Examples: 'species' for _Quercus_ aff. _agrifolia_ var. _oxyadenia_; 'variety' for _Quercus agrifolia_ cf. var. _oxyadenia_.
</DL>
------
<DL><DD>%ICON{bubble}% *RE: !DwC element !IdentificationQualifer*
Posted by: Stan Blum [mailto:sblum@@calacademy.org]   Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005, 08:54:32

Dear Steve,
 
I've seen this structure suggested and used elsewhere, but I don't believe it's logically consistent.  The modifier we are talking about concerns the identification, the specimen's relationship to (membership in) the lowest level taxon indicated.  If the higher taxon is in question and the lower one not, that means there is a problem of classification (relationships among taxa), not specimen identification.  I don't believe doubt in classification should be mixed with doubt in identification.  On the other hand, I might not be understanding something fundamental about botanical practice.
 
-Stan </DL>
------
<DL><DD>%ICON{bubble}% *Re: !DwC element !IdentificationQualifer*
Posted by: Steven Ginzbarg [mailto:sginzbar@@biology.as.ua.edu]   Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005, 05:42:36

From: Blum, Stan [mailto:sblum@@calacademy.org]

Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:52 PM To: Ginzbarg, Steve; !DarwinCore2 of tdwg Subject: RE: !DwC element !IdentificationQualifier

Stan,
If the higher taxon is in question, the lower taxon will also be in question. If all that matters is whether the lowest level taxon is in question or not, then "cf." could be provided as the !IdentificationQualifier whether the identification was -Quercus_ cf. _agrifolia_ var. _oxyadenia_ or
_Quercus agrifolia_ cf. var. _oxyadenia_. In this case I would not use "subspecies in question" as an example.

While the provider is asked to provide the lowest level taxon, someone querying the database may only want to select all the _Quercus agrifolia_ regardless of varietal determination. If the identification was _Quercus_ aff. _agrifolia_ var. _oxyadenia_ he could choose to exclude it since it
was identified as not agriflolia but something close. If, on the other hand, if the identification was _Quercus agrifolia_ aff. var. _oxyadenia_ then he would include it because there was no doubt that it was _Quercus agrifolia_ only doubt about the variety. Whether this distinction is as important in practice as it is in theory is another question.
</DL>
------
------
%ICON{bubble}%
@


1.6
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="JohnWieczorek" date="1171459834" format="1.1" version="1.6"}%
d4 1
a4 2
A standard term to qualify the identification of the organism when doubts have arisen as to its identity.  Examples: "cf.", "aff.", "subspecies in question"

d62 1
a62 1
%ICON{bubble}%@


1.5
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="StephenLong" date="1161629312" format="1.1" version="1.5"}%
d3 1
a3 1
---++Element Description: Identification Qualifer
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="StephenLong" date="1160168894" format="1.1" version="1.4"}%
d3 1
a3 7
This is a test documentation page for a <noautolink> *IdentificationQualifer* </noautolink> concept.



-- Main.StephenLong - 14 Sep 2006

---++Element Description
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="StephenLong" date="1160163646" format="1.1" version="1.3"}%
d44 10
a53 2
<DL>
<DD>%ICON{bubble}% *Re: !DwC element !IdentificationQualifer*
a59 4
Dear Steve,

I've seen this structure suggested and used elsewhere, but I don't believe it's logically consistent. The modifier we are talking about concerns the identification, the specimen's relationship to (membership in) the lowest level taxon indicated. If the higher taxon is in question and the lower one not, that means there is a problem of classification (relationships among taxa), not specimen identification. I don't believe doubt in classification should be mixed with doubt in identification. On the other hand, I might not be understanding something fundamental about botanical practice. -Stan

d69 1
a69 1
%ICON{bubble}%
@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="StephenLong" date="1158707913" format="1.1" version="1.2"}%
d17 2
d20 46
a65 1
%ICON{bubble}%@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="StephenLong" date="1158258041" format="1.1" version="1.1"}%
d15 4
@