As a User I want more standard terms instead of `genus`, `species`, `infraspecies`

[dimus]

@Archilegt writes in #201

One question: Are "wordType" values open to changes?
For example:
genus to genericName
species to specificEpithet
infraspecies to infraspecificEpithet.

[dimus]

@Archilegt writes in #201

@dimus, great to read about the background! The main motivation for the change is aiming at all of us speaking the same language. In a way, the Codes of Nomenclature are biodiversity informatics standards, and terms and definitions contained in the Codes are being adopted by other standards like DarwinCore. With DC becomes more widely used and understood, that creates a larger community speaking "the language". Any software that reuses the same language would benefit from better understanding by the community. In general, the less "mapping" we need from software to (human or machine) user, the better. :)

[dimus]

I recall a similar request came earlier from @abubelihna

[abubelinha]

I recall a similar request came earlier from @Abubelihna

🤔 I recall having asked you somewhere about interpretation of some api parameters.
I couldn't find that thread, but I don't remember to propose changes in names of any parameters (other than perhaps adding some new parameters: i.e. gnames/issues/92).

Anyway ... if you ask me now, I'd rather prefer to let the APIs stay as stable as possible.
@abubelinha

[dimus]

I tag this issue as v2, so it only will be implemented when/if gnparser will need to become backward incompatible for other stronger reasons

[abubelinha]

Thanks.

EDIT: It took me a while (1, 2) to figure out how to search github for my previous comments.
I guess you meant my first gnames/gnparser comment #185 (just wondering about some tags' meaning in api response)