Change term - typeStatus

[nielsklazenga]

Change term

• Submitter: Niels Klazenga
• Justification: This proposal clarifies the usage of dwc:typeStatus. Issue #28 identified the need to clearly separate type status (in the sense proposed here) from the typified scientific name. During the discussion around #28, it came to light that the current definition of typeStatus is at odds with the most prevalent usage of the term. We consider usage of dwc:typeStatus in accordance with the current definition sufficiently rare that the least disruptive solution is to change the definition of the term, rather than mint a new URI. ABCD uses TypeStatus in the sense proposed here, so adopting this change will lead to consistent usage of the term throughout TDWG (and that we do not have to have this discussion again when Darwin Core and ABCD are being reconciled). typeStatus is also in the dwciri namespace, for use with an IRI, which only makes sense if it takes a vocabulary term, as is proposed here, rather than free text, which is the case under the current definition. This proposal replaces the proposal in issue #327 and should go together with the proposal in #28.
• Proponents: Markus Doering, Rich Pyle

Current Term definition: https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:typeStatus

Proposed new attributes of the term:

• Term name: typeStatus
• Organized in Class: Identification
• Definition of the term: The kind of nomenclatural type an Organism represents.
• Usage comments: Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the GBIF Nomenlatural Type Status Vocabulary. typeStatus is to be used together with a typified name, either typifiedName or scientificName, depending on how it is used.
• Examples: holotype, isotype, lectotype
• Refines: None
• Replaces: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/version/typeStatus-2017-10-06
• ABCD 2.06: DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/NomenclaturalTypeDesignations/NomenclaturalTypeDesignation/TypeStatus

[tucotuco]

This proposal has a serious challenge with respect to the Vocabulary Maintenance Specification stability requirement (Section 3.1 Justifications for change in https://github.com/tdwg/vocab/blob/master/vms/maintenance-specification.md ). The definition of the term has included the typifiedName and well as the type of type since 2007 (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/curatorial/version/TypeStatus-2007-04-17.htm), two years before Darwin Core was ratified as a standard. The proposal would break that stability. Furthermore, the statement "the current definition of typeStatus is at odds with the most prevalent usage of the term" is false. As of the 2021-01-12 snapshot of GBIF, 61.4% of Occurrences that have a value in the typeStatus field (n=6,673,342) are definitively not simply a typeStatus by the proposed redefinition. Of the remaining 38.6% there is an unknown number of values that are also not type of type values, meaning the prevalence of non-conformant data is even higher than 61.4%. A quick perusal of the top ten values of typeStatus suggests that the at least 5% more are not type of type values. Given that the majority of usage is actually following the standard definition (especially since it is fine to only include the type of type and not the typified name), I believe the only viable solution is to propose a new term with the exact meaning that is sought. In doing so, be aware of the requirement to demonstrate demand as well. TDWGers thinking it would be a good idea is not sufficient. There have to be independent stakeholders who actually need to share or aggregate the data in this way. Getting their endorsement and listing them as proponents will make it possible for the proposal to move forward.

[deepreef]

Thanks, @tucotuco -- this is very helpful! My inclination would be to leave it alone, and not even mess with a proposed new term at this time, until we see what emerges from the TNC-TCS effort. I think a single shift to a more robust/comprehensive taxonomy/nomenclature standard would be preferable than small incremental changes to DwC. I'm still mystified that my brain is stuck in the pre-2007 interpretation of typeStatus, and that I somehow completely missed the change to the current definition. But that's 100% on me.

[nielsklazenga]

@tucotuco and @deepreef, I agree.

[tucotuco]

Retracted. See https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/28#issuecomment-1709316866.