{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tdwg/dwc/issues/105","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tdwg/dwc/issues/105/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tdwg/dwc/issues/105/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tdwg/dwc/issues/105/events","html_url":"https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/105","id":103731167,"number":105,"title":"acceptedNameUsageID should explicitly specify dwc:taxonID as the referenced values","user":{"login":"mdoering","id":327505,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/327505?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering","html_url":"https://github.com/mdoering","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mdoering/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2015-08-28T14:43:30Z","updated_at":"2015-08-28T14:43:30Z","closed_at":null,"body":"The definition of dwc:acceptedNameUsageID does not clearly specify what values it expects and how they relate to other dwc terms. Currently: \"An identifier for the name usage (documented meaning of the name according to a source) of the currently valid (zoological) or accepted (botanical) taxon.\"\r\n\r\nIn order to correctly establish relation to the accepted usage it should be clear to which property this id relates. In GBIF and all implementations I am aware of this is the dwc:taxonID property. For example see this issue from the dwca validator: https://github.com/gbif/dwca-validator/issues/3\r\n\r\nThe definition or at least comments of acceptedNameUsageID (and similar parentNameUsageID and originalNameUsageID) should be changed to mention this. This is a common cause of referential integrity problems for taxonomic datasets we see at GBIF."}}