David Shorthouse

@ben-norton Thoughts here as relevant to a Compound Specimen Model?

Exactly, @deepreef! My wording was rather awkward. My thinking was, "What if one day GBIF became the purveyor/aggregator of material entities as (one of its) core units as opposed to...

I like this example of spiders or insects in amber. If there were many `dwc:Assertion` (_i.e._ measurements) applied to each of the insects within the one piece of amber as...

> I think you've also outlined the need to be able to have entity identifiers for the material instances representing the individual parts in order to avoid having "amber with...

> That may be true, but does it actually represent an impediment to mapping to DwC-DP? There is no reason you can't keep Organism records, it's just that it isn't...

> [@dshorthouse](https://github.com/dshorthouse) Have we covered all of your original concerns with the conversation thus far? You have and I do believe it is logically sound. @deepreef? I am naturally thinking...

> It should never be the case that a data publisher absolutely cannot produce an occurrence table or even a record in an occurrence table that corresponds with a given...

> Or any differently about removing section 4? Am still not sure about this. I suppose we're in new territory because the DwC-A exchange format did not have a similar...

Agree with changes though note the loss of the qualifier, "The primary collector or observer, especially one who applies a personal identifier (dwc:recordNumber), should be listed first."

For curiosity-sake, I substituted the now explicit references to classes in definitions like this one & read aloud their full-throated version to hear if they still make a clear sound:...