Almost. The nesting wasn't quite right. It should be:<br><br><font face="courier new, monospace"><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><taxonomicClassification></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <taxonRankName>Genus</</span><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">taxonRankName></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <taxonRankValue>Aristida</</span><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">taxonRankValue></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <taxonomicClassification></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <taxonRankName>Species</</span><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">taxonRankName></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <taxonRankValue>Aristida purpurea</taxonRankValue></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <taxonomicClassification></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <taxonRankName>Subspecies</</span><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">taxonRankName></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> <taxonRankValue>Aristida purpurea var. nealleyi</taxonRankValue></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </taxonomicClassification></span></font><div>
<font face="courier new, monospace"><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </taxonomicClassification></span><br style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></taxonomicClassification></span></font><div>
<font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><div class="gmail_quote">Of course, this then begs the question as to what the proper rank is, and whether the subspecies/variant should include the species binomial or not, and whether it should include the 'var.'. Folks over on TDWG argue about this (and authority name strings) incessantly. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">For the rank, should it be "Subspecies" or "Vairant"?</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">For the variant rank value, should it be:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div><div class="gmail_quote"> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:'courier new',monospace;font-size:13px"><taxonRankValue>Aristida purpurea var. nealleyi</taxonRankValue></span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:'courier new',monospace;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"> or</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:'courier new',monospace;font-size:13px"><taxonRankValue>nealleyi</taxonRankValue></span></div><div class="gmail_quote">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:'courier new',monospace;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"> or</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:'courier new',monospace;font-size:13px"><taxonRankValue>var. nealleyi</taxonRankValue></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">
Matt</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Ken Ramsey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kramsey@jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu" target="_blank">kramsey@jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Matt,<br>
<br>
Is this what you meant?<br>
<br>
<taxonomicClassification><br>
<taxonRankName>Genus</taxonRankName><br>
<taxonRankValue>Aristida</taxonRankValue><br>
<taxonomicClassification><br>
<taxonRankName>Species</taxonRankName><br>
<taxonRankValue>Aristida purpurea</taxonRankValue><br>
</taxonomicClassification><br>
<taxonomicClassification><br>
<taxonRankName>Subspecies</taxonRankName><br>
<taxonRankValue>Aristida purpurea var. nealleyi</taxonRankValue><br>
</taxonomicClassification><br>
</taxonomicClassification><br>
<div class="im"><br>
Ken<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------------------------<br>
Ken Ramsey<br>
Data Manager<br>
Jornada LTER Project<br>
New Mexico State University<br>
2995 Knox Street, suite 200<br>
Box 30003, MSC 3JER<br>
Las Cruces, NM 88003<br>
<a href="tel:%28575%29646-7918" value="+15756467918">(575)646-7918</a> (office)<br>
<a href="tel:%28575%29646-5889" value="+15756465889">(575)646-5889</a> (fax)<br>
<a href="mailto:kramsey@jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu">kramsey@jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu</a><br>
-------------------------------<br>
</div>>>> Matt Jones <<a href="mailto:jones@nceas.ucsb.edu">jones@nceas.ucsb.edu</a>> 9/4/2012 10:21 AM >>><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">Add it in at the subspecies rank level.<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
<br>
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Ken Ramsey<br>
<<a href="mailto:kramsey@jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu">kramsey@jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu</a>>wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi Everyone,<br>
><br>
> How would you deal with varieties or sub-species (e.g., Aristida purpurea<br>
> var. nealleyi)?<br>
><br>
> Ken<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> -------------------------------<br>
> Ken Ramsey<br>
> Data Manager<br>
> Jornada LTER Project<br>
> New Mexico State University<br>
> 2995 Knox Street, suite 200<br>
> Box 30003, MSC 3JER<br>
> Las Cruces, NM 88003<br>
> <a href="tel:%28575%29646-7918" value="+15756467918">(575)646-7918</a> (office)<br>
> <a href="tel:%28575%29646-5889" value="+15756465889">(575)646-5889</a> (fax)<br>
> <a href="mailto:kramsey@jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu">kramsey@jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu</a><br>
> -------------------------------<br>
> >>> Margaret O'Brien <<a href="mailto:mob@msi.ucsb.edu">mob@msi.ucsb.edu</a>> 9/4/2012 9:46 AM >>><br>
> Hi Wade -<br>
> I agree with James.<br>
> For your code (and assuming it is for use with LTER datasets), I would<br>
> assume that the input conforms to our Best Practices. Code that can<br>
> detect the difference between the species binomial and the species<br>
> fragment is a friendly touch, but I think that looking for a space<br>
> character might be a little unreliable. One could also argue that<br>
> accommodating bad practice is not a particularly good idea (despite<br>
> what's in the normative docs), but that is a somewhat unpopular point of<br>
> view.<br>
><br>
> There are many areas where the normative docs are not quite in line with<br>
> best practices. I will enter your email in as a bug so that it can be<br>
> fixed in some future release.<br>
><br>
> Margaret<br>
><br>
> -----------<br>
> Margaret O'Brien<br>
> Information Management<br>
> Santa Barbara Coastal LTER<br>
> Marine Science Institute, UCSB<br>
> Santa Barbara, CA 93106<br>
> <a href="tel:805-893-2071" value="+18058932071">805-893-2071</a> (voice)<br>
> <a href="http://sbc.lternet.edu" target="_blank">http://sbc.lternet.edu</a><br>
><br>
> On 9/3/12 8:47 PM, James Brunt wrote:<br>
> > I was taught - admittedly long ago - that, taxonomically speaking, the<br>
> > 'species name' must include the genus and the specific epithet. While<br>
> > looking at it from a strictly hierarchical node structure the specific<br>
> > epithet looks and acts like the other nodes. However, taxonomically the<br>
> > node 'alterniflora' has no taxon rank by itself. I guess I'd prefer to<br>
> > see the binomial 'species name' concept retained in our metadata if<br>
> > there is no confounding reason why it shouldn't be so.<br>
> ><br>
> > The is also a mistake in the normative docs if they are referring to<br>
> > Acer rubrum as the 'common name' of Red Maple.<br>
> ><br>
> > My two bits.<br>
> ><br>
> > James<br>
> ><br>
> > James W. Brunt<br>
> > Chief Information Officer<br>
> > Long Term Ecological Research Network<br>
> > LTER Network Office<br>
> > Department of Biology MSC03 2020<br>
> > 1 University of New Mexico<br>
> > Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001<br>
> > <a href="tel:505%20277%202535" value="+15052772535">505 277 2535</a><br>
> > jbrunt@LTERnet.edu<br>
> > OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/4E657C39<br>
> ><br>
> > On 9/3/2012 10:51 AM, Wade Sheldon wrote:<br>
> >> Hi folks,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I've been working on an XSL that extracts selected content from an EML<br>
> >> document to annotate parsed data sets in MATLAB, and I came across some<br>
> >> inconsistencies in encoding of taxonomicCoverage elements for species<br>
> >> names from different EML implementers. Specifically, some authors use<br>
> >> the species binomial, and some do not, i.e.<br>
> >><br>
> >> with binomial:<br>
> >><br>
> >> <taxonomicClassification><br>
> >> <taxonRankName>Genus</taxonRankName><br>
> >> <taxonRankValue>Spartina</taxonRankValue><br>
> >> <taxonomicClassification><br>
> >> <taxonRankName>Species</taxonRankName><br>
> >> <taxonRankValue>Spartina alterniflora</taxonRankValue><br>
> >> </taxonomicClassification><br>
> >> </taxonomicClassification><br>
> >><br>
> >> vs.<br>
> >><br>
> >> without binomial:<br>
> >><br>
> >> <taxonomicClassification><br>
> >> <taxonRankName>Genus</taxonRankName><br>
> >> <taxonRankValue>Spartina</taxonRankValue><br>
> >> <taxonomicClassification><br>
> >> <taxonRankName>Species</taxonRankName><br>
> >> <taxonRankValue>alterniflora</taxonRankValue><br>
> >> </taxonomicClassification><br>
> >> </taxonomicClassification><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> When I first started producing EML back in 2003 I used the species name<br>
> >> without genus, but Matt Jones and Dan Higgins suggested I use the<br>
> >> species binomial instead. We also included that recommendation in the<br>
> >> LTER EML best practices<br>
> >> (<br>
> <a href="http://im.lternet.edu/sites/im.lternet.edu/files/emlbestpractices-2.0-FINAL-20110801_0.pdf" target="_blank">http://im.lternet.edu/sites/im.lternet.edu/files/emlbestpractices-2.0-FINAL-20110801_0.pdf</a><br>
> ).<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> However, the normative docs for EML 2.1.1<br>
> >> (<a href="http://knb.ecoinformatics.org/software/eml/eml-2.1.1/eml-coverage.html" target="_blank">http://knb.ecoinformatics.org/software/eml/eml-2.1.1/eml-coverage.html</a><br>
> )<br>
> >> seem to suggest the opposite approach:<br>
> >><br>
> >> "The name representing the taxonomic rank of the taxon being described.<br>
> >> The values included may be referenced from an authoritative source such<br>
> >> as the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)in the U.S.<br>
> >> (<a href="http://www/itis.usda.gov" target="_blank">http://www/itis.usda.gov</a>) and in Canada<br>
> >> (<a href="http://sis.agr.gc.ca/pls/itisca/taxaget" target="_blank">http://sis.agr.gc.ca/pls/itisca/taxaget</a>). Also, Species2000 is another<br>
> >> source of taxonomic information, found at (<a href="http://www.sp2000.org" target="_blank">http://www.sp2000.org</a>)<br>
> >> Example(s):<br>
> >> Acer would be an example of a genus rank value, and rubrum would be an<br>
> >> example of a species rank value, together indicating the common name of<br>
> >> red maple. It is recommended to start with Kingdom and include ranks<br>
> >> down to the most detailed level possible."<br>
> >><br>
> >> For now I'm revising the XSL to check for species-only using a contains<br>
> >> node test on a space character, but handling both cases is a pain<br>
> >> considering the nesting, so it would be better to standardize on one<br>
> >> approach.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Thoughts?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Wade Sheldon<br>
> >> GCE-LTER<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> Eml-dev mailing list<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:Eml-dev@ecoinformatics.org">Eml-dev@ecoinformatics.org</a><br>
> >> <a href="http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev</a><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Eml-dev mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Eml-dev@ecoinformatics.org">Eml-dev@ecoinformatics.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Eml-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Eml-dev@ecoinformatics.org">Eml-dev@ecoinformatics.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Eml-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Eml-dev@ecoinformatics.org">Eml-dev@ecoinformatics.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev</a><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>