EDIT

Andreas Kohlbecker wrote:

Hi Andreas,

the verbatim type information is represented by the class TextualTypeDesignation. This class has a boolean flag isVerbatim. The documentation of this flag is

    /**
     * Flag indicating if this textual type designation is a citation (e.g. original citation).
     * This may have influence on the correct formatting of type designations.
     */

why is the flag not named like isCitation and how do you expect the portal to behave with respect to this flag?

isVerbatim was the label agreed with the users, I think semantics is very similar.

How shoul it look like: finally the users must decide. Maybe those listening to this ticket may give advise. Until then we may start with "text"

[Feedback from Walter]

Hallo,

mit Bezug auf das Portal folgender Vorschlag meinerseits:
Wenn nach dem Ausgabetext die Quelle zitiert wird, dann sollte der Text in Anführungszeichen gesetzt werden, wenn isVerbatim gesetzt ist.

verbatim heißt wörtlich, das ist also eine Untermenge von Zitat (zitieren kann man auch in indirekter Form).
Die Quellreferenz impliziert indirekte Zitate.

Herzlichen Gruß
Walter

The textual type designation are now at least shown in the taxon synonymy and in the name page.

Open issues are:

• show verbatim type information in
  • registration page
  • various specimen views
• show sources and annotations (The cdm-dataportal|2d95e99f already contains some code for this but there are still problems to be solved)
• Implement tests

test data dumped and stored in _testdata/edit-int/testdb/5.10/cdm_integration_reference-2019-09-11-001.sql.bz2

Andreas Kohlbecker wrote:

The textual type designation are now at least shown in the taxon synonymy and in the name page.

Open issues are:

• show verbatim type information in
  • registration page
  • various specimen views
• show sources and annotations (The cdm-dataportal|2d95e99f already contains some code for this but there are still problems to be solved)
• Implement tests

How far can this be shown on specimen views? As it is purely textual there is no structured relationship to specimen.

Andreas Müller wrote:

Andreas Kohlbecker wrote:

The textual type designation are now at least shown in the taxon synonymy and in the name page.

Open issues are:

• show verbatim type information in
  • registration page
  • various specimen views
• show sources and annotations (The cdm-dataportal|2d95e99f already contains some code for this but there are still problems to be solved)
• Implement tests

How far can this be shown on specimen views? As it is purely textual there is no structured relationship to specimen.

Your are right, the requirement to show textual type designations on specimen pages is nonsense.

So the open issues are:

Open issues are:

• show verbatim type information registration page
• show sources and annotations (The cdm-dataportal|2d95e99f already contains some code for this but there are still problems to be solved)
• Implement tests

Andreas Kohlbecker wrote:

TextualTypeDesignation are not supposed to contain validly published type designations, therefore it makes no sense to implement their display for registration pages. There never should be a Registration for a name without published type designation.

I am not sure if this is true. There no reason why TextualTypeDesignations should not be used for validly published type designations. The only difference between textual and specimen based type designations is that the specimen is explicitly linked in the latter case while it is not in first case. There is even a discussion if TextualTypeDesingations should only be used for real type designations (but maybe some of them not valid).