Is it right that this proposal is essentially for changing the standard names
`biological_taxon_name` (or biological_taxon_lsid - see #308) and
`biological_taxon_identifier` to `scientific_name` and `scientific_name_id`
respectively?
As CF is applicable to many areas of geoscience, standard names are more
self-explanatory than would suffice for any one area because they
answer the question, “What does this mean?”, rather than the question,
“What do we call this?”. It seems that the use "scientific" in the proposed
names is not very informative in this context, as it doesn't really tell a
third party anything about the data.
The existing names ("biological") seem very understandable from a lay
perspective (i.e. mine!), and you say that they are not wrong, so I wonder if
this change is required?
Perhaps a connection to Darwin Core couldl be made in the standard name
descriptions (which currently mentions WoRMS and ITIS) - would that be
appropriate?
It would be very useful to hear from others with expertise in the use of this
sort of data.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/309#issuecomment-731098420
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
[email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the
UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list.
To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to
[email protected].
