@albenson-usgs Thanks that thread reinforces my perception that 'taxon' comes with a purity and that mixing morphological terms into 'biological_taxon_name' will cause a semantic divergence between CF and Darwin Core that is far more significant than a label like a Standard Name. Conversely, the approach I've taken with other communities like SeaDataNet is match the standard to the data, allowing mixtures of taxa and groups under the umbrella concept of 'biological entity'. See http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/S25/current/accepted/ for a listing of what I mean. This suited the requirements of the community we were serving, which was to provide a semantic framework that would cope with any biological or biogeochemical dataset that they threw at it. Darwin Core interoperability wasn't top of the agenda and semantic crosswalks between what we've put together for SeaDataNet and Darwin Core would require work (e.g. building mappings).
CF is at the stage where I thing that interoperability with both SeaDataNet and Darwin Core could be made much easier by making the correct decisions at this stage. I'll think on this further and maybe have some off-line discussions before responding again to cf-convention/discuss/issues/86 next week. -- 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-731369741 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].
