This message came from the CF Trac system. Do not reply. Instead, enter your comments in the CF Trac system at https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/.
#99: Taxon Names and Identifiers -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: lowry | Owner: [email protected] Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: high | Milestone: Component: cf-conventions | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Comment (by jonathan): Dear Roy Thanks for making this proposal. You provide good arguments in support of doing this way. I think that quite a lot of the above text is actually the arguments in support of making the change, and we will not need to include it all in the CF standard document. I would suggest that the text might be '''Taxon names and identifiers''' A taxon is a named level within a biological classification, such as a class, genus and species. Quantities dependent on taxa have generic `standard_name`s containing the word `taxon`, and the taxa are identified by auxiliary coordinate variables. Then go on to describe the conventions for names and IDs, and give the example(s). You compare this proposal to geographic regions, and I agree with that, but it's a bit more complicated because of the alternative sets of labels. I propose that we should tidy the CF document by promoting 6.1.1 on "Geographic regions" to 6.3 (i.e. remove it from 6.1), and adding yours as 6.4. Then 6.1 and 6.2 will describe mechanisms in CF, and 6.3 and 6.4 applications of these mechanisms. I am still concerned about the possibility for confusion in identification of taxa, but I accept that we have to work with the best there is! I'd like to suggest something a bit more demanding, however: * We require `taxon_name` from WoRMS on ITIS, as you say. * We require that either `taxon_identifier` (the alphaID) or `taxonomic_serial_number` (from ITIS) should be provided, and we recommend that both should be provided, particularly the aphiaID. Including both will make the dataset more thoroughly self-describing and hence more useful for data exchange. * It is an error if the `taxon_name` does not agree with the `taxon_identifier` or the `taxonomic_serial_number` (this includes the case where the `taxon_identifier` and the `taxonomic_serial_number` are inconsistent). However, this error isn't one the CF checker could detect, because it would require there to exist a cross-reference table between WoRMS and ITIS, and I assume there isn't one of those available. Thus, I would put the two sorts of identifier into separate auxiliary coordinate variables. Since they have different standard names, they wouldn't need the namespace identifier, and the values can be integers, rather than strings. Missing data can be given for any taxon which doesn't have an identifier. What do you think? Best wishes Jonathan -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/99#comment:1> CF Metadata <http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/> CF Metadata This message came from the CF Trac system. To unsubscribe, without unsubscribing to the regular cf-metadata list, send a message to "[email protected]" with "unsubscribe cf-metadata" in the body of your message.
