Add typifiedName

[timrobertson100]

I've had an approach from a GBIF publisher:

The CETAF ISTC are interested in using this field for work on typification data
What is the chance of GBIF implementing typifiedName?

This is a likely candidate to pass the next round of DwC review, and so I suggest we add it to the next batch of edits we make to the ingestion (in a gbif or dwc namespace depending on the state).

[qgroom]

This will be really useful to clean up type specimens on GBIF and link them to their nomenclatural details and literature.
We have publishable data ready for this field, and I'm sure many other collections have too.

[qgroom]

It will probably come up in the Darwin Core public review, but it might be worth thinking about implementing a data quality warning when typifiedName is populated and typeStatus is empty. A warning might also be possible in the other direction. However, it is quite common that collections know a specimen is a type, but are not certain what name it is a type of.

[aguentsch]

It would be great if typifiedName became a standard for GBIF publication. Our type specimens curated on the JACQ network already have the field (called "type of" here), so we could provide the data for typifiedName immediately. see https://www.jacq.org/detail.php?ID=1053795

[Rindiser]

This would be a nice additioin

[CecSve]

It will probably come up in the Darwin Core public review, but it might be worth thinking about implementing a data quality warning when typifiedName is populated and typeStatus is empty. A warning might also be possible in the other direction. However, it is quite common that collections know a specimen is a type, but are not certain what name it is a type of.

There will soon be an update to the typeStatus controlled vocabulary gbif/vocabulary#87 - I am mentioning it here if any synergy is expected for interpretation.

[qgroom]

There will soon be an update to the typeStatus controlled vocabulary gbif/vocabulary#87 - I am mentioning it here if any synergy is expected for interpretation.

Good to know! I don't foresee too much complication except where a specimen is a type for multiple names.

In the long term it would be nice to see a guide written to the best practises for publishing typification data. While it is not that difficult, it would encourage standardization.

[CecSve]

It is probably too difficult to do anything with this in the pipelines, but when we worked on the typeStatus vocabulary (and inspired by this comment), I noticed most of the verbatim values (71%, n = 107140) included an of - in most cases referring to the typifiedName, but not always (e.g. type of type is also counted).