Markus Döring

As we already closed #328 because of stability arguments trying to change the dwc:typeStatus definition, I would suggest to stick to the original proposal to simply move the term to...

Removing the publication from the definition you mean Current DEF: >A list (concatenated and separated) of nomenclatural types (type status, typified scientific name, publication) applied to the subject. Proposed by...

@nielsklazenga my point is that 92% of records in GBIF are simply the type status, e.g. holotype, and do not include anything further. Changing the definition to "at a minimum...

> The term 'type of type' (https://github.com/tdwg/ontology/blob/master/ontology/voc/TaxonName.rdf#L389) being hard to understand for normal people is a funny argument given that the same normal people got the meaning of `typeStatus` so...

I am linking a [GBIF comment](https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/28#issuecomment-2717750777) from the typifiedName discussion, that GBIF interprets dwc:typeStatus just as the status value for the type and clearly recommends against including the typified name...

I remember in the early days of dwca that there were also some archives with DC style xml metadata. DwC does not specify any metadata format

what a bad name ;) we cannot easily handle that in GBIF, but with the new name parser used in ChecklistBank.org we can configure it to understand this very name

I have configured CLB now to understand the name properly: https://api.checklistbank.org/parser/name?q=Chlamys%20(Lyropecten)%20incertae%20Tucker-Rowland,%201938

might well be. But there are also thousands of wrong incertae sedis names. But maybe we can still remove incertae from the blacklist

Id would be good to keep the alias swapping and index build separate, we never run it as one job.