#99: Taxon Names and Identifiers
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Reporter: lowry | Owner: cf-conventions@…
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: high | Milestone:
Component: cf-conventions | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Comment (by lowry):
Dear Martin,
This work is coming back to life after lying fallow for four years. I hope
to finish the job this time.
Regarding your comments:
1) Any improvements on the simple idea of two arrays of dimension taxon
that are co-ordinates of abundance are most welcome. I don't see any
problem with your suggestion. If anybody else sees any issues please
holler.
2) I plan to put in a Standard Names proposal in a week or so. Before then
I propose to consult with some people in the OBIS community as to whether
'taxon' is the appropriate term to include in the Standard Name and if so
how it should be defined. I suggest we defer this discussion until I put
in the proposal including that input.
3) LSIDs are governed URNs with the format:
urn:lsid:<Authority>:<Namespace>:<ObjectID>[:<Version>]
This includes the reference classification in the <Authority> element and
these are restricted by the LSID governance, which is well respected. Your
suggestion restricts a given abundance data set to a single reference
classification, but some datasets could require the coverage of both WoRMS
and ITIS. Using LSIDs permits this. Consequently, I disagree with you on
this point.
--
Ticket URL: <https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/99#comment:14>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
CF Metadata
