I totally understand what @roy-lowry and @davidhassell are suggesting about standard names being self-explanatory. What I'm ultimately trying to avoid is that people have to put the same information twice to make it clear that they are following both standards. Let's say we have a data manager that has plankton data and they want to make sure their data are CF compliant but that they can also be ingested by global biological data aggregators. They might feel they would need to implement the CF standard name `biological_taxon_name` = "Calanus finmarchicus" and then also include the Darwin Core `scientificName` = "Calanus finmarchicus". Also by adopting the Darwin Core term I'm hoping it would promote synergy and collaboration between the two communities.
-- 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-731281324 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].
