Forgot the bloody attachment
Kevin Thiele
kevin.thiele at BIGPOND.COM
Mon Nov 26 16:47:17 CET 2001
Forgot the bloody attachment - How many times does one have to put up a message before getting the message through? Oops.
Steve Shattuck's pointed out, quite rightly, that we shouldn't fuss too much over the details of the challenge cases before actually taking the challenges. I think it's important to have a bit of an overview of the challenges for some distance ahead of us while working on one challenge in hand, rather than just taking steps one at a time, because it may be that solving one challenge may canalize us into a solution that makes a challenge down the road more difficult. So I suggest we keep a set of challenges in mind while working. But, of course, it'd be a disaster if we couldn't even agree on the challenges before starting to find the solutions!
Cheers - k
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Thiele" <kevin.thiele at BIGPOND.COM>
To: <TDWG-SDD at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 9:27 PM
Subject: Challenge Cases
| Welcome back!
|
| I actually posted this message a week ago, but my email address has
changed
| slightly, and the list server rejected me. So here it is again.
|
| At the Sydney TDWG meeting we agreed that we would continue with the SDD
| discussion on this list, but try to keep a tighter focus. The last active
| period (about 12 months ago) was an important brainstorm session, but
didn't
| seem to be very effective at actually getting us to the goal of a workable
| standard.
|
| We decided this time to try working through some challenge cases - real or
| made-up instances of descriptive data that need to be accommodated in the
| standard. By agreeing first on a +/- complete set of challenges, then
| working through the challenge cases in order from simple to difficult, we
| should be able to reasonably bound our problem while keeping an overview
of
| the territory while actually sinking out teeth into the nitty-gritty.
|
| Attached is my first attempt at a set of challenge cases, presented in +/-
| this form to the Sydney meeting. The first challenge case has an exemplar,
| the others have not yet. This document as it's worked up will be placed on
| the TDWG web site for working reference. As the standard evolves, this
will
| also be put up on the site, possibly with progressive status indicators
for
| parts of the standard (e.g. working, proposed, normative - may we one day
| get to normative)
|
| I suggest that we should first add to or modify the list of challenges.
| Propose a challenge (with exemplar) to add to the list. Once we are happy
| with an approximate list of challenges (keeping in mind that others will
| become clear as we proceed, so there's no need to agonise over this step),
| we'll start with challenge 1. We'll throw up the challenge, give a week or
| so for contributors to propose data structures that can meet the
challenge,
| then compare and discuss alternate solutions.
|
| Gregor I think will shortly be posting a summary of the meeting
discussions.
| We agreed, I believe, that the goal is to provide a standard that can
| adequately address the descriptive data requirements (ie be a superset) of
| all existing programs (e.g. Lucid, DELTA, DELTA Access, Biolink) but not
be
| limited to existing programs. It should be able to function as an
| interchange standard, but should not be limited to that. Bob Morris agreed
| to provide shortly a discussion on interchange vs interoperability
standards
| and conflicts that may arise in trying to allow for both goals. We agreed
| that XML will be the basis for the standard.
|
| May the force be with us!
|
| Cheers - k
------=_NextPart_001_0117_01C1769A.02097560
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#f8f8d0>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Forgot the bloody attachment - How many times does
one have to put up a message before getting the message through?
Oops.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Steve Shattuck's pointed out, quite rightly, that
we shouldn't fuss too much over the details of the challenge cases before
actually taking the challenges. I think it's important to have a bit of an
overview of the challenges for some distance ahead of us while working on one
challenge in hand, rather than just taking steps one at a time, because it may
be that solving one challenge may canalize us into a solution that makes a
challenge down the road more difficult. So I suggest we keep a set of challenges
in mind while working. But, of course, it'd be a disaster if we couldn't even
agree on the challenges before starting to find the solutions!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>Cheers - k<BR><BR>----- Original Message
-----<BR>From: "Kevin Thiele" <kevin.thiele at BIGPOND.COM><BR>To:
<TDWG-SDD at USOBI.ORG><BR>Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 9:27
PM<BR>Subject: Challenge Cases<BR><BR><BR>| Welcome back!<BR>|<BR>| I actually
posted this message a week ago, but my email address has<BR>changed<BR>|
slightly, and the list server rejected me. So here it is again.<BR>|<BR>| At the
Sydney TDWG meeting we agreed that we would continue with the SDD<BR>|
discussion on this list, but try to keep a tighter focus. The last active<BR>|
period (about 12 months ago) was an important brainstorm session,
but<BR>didn't<BR>| seem to be very effective at actually getting us to the goal
of a workable<BR>| standard.<BR>|<BR>| We decided this time to try working
through some challenge cases - real or<BR>| made-up instances of descriptive
data that need to be accommodated in the<BR>| standard. By agreeing first on a
+/- complete set of challenges, then<BR>| working through the challenge cases in
order from simple to difficult, we<BR>| should be able to reasonably bound our
problem while keeping an overview<BR>of<BR>| the territory while actually
sinking out teeth into the nitty-gritty.<BR>|<BR>| Attached is my first attempt
at a set of challenge cases, presented in +/-<BR>| this form to the Sydney
meeting. The first challenge case has an exemplar,<BR>| the others have not yet.
This document as it's worked up will be placed on<BR>| the TDWG web site for
working reference. As the standard evolves, this<BR>will<BR>| also be put up on
the site, possibly with progressive status indicators<BR>for<BR>| parts of the
standard (e.g. working, proposed, normative - may we one day<BR>| get to
normative)<BR>|<BR>| I suggest that we should first add to or modify the list of
challenges.<BR>| Propose a challenge (with exemplar) to add to the list. Once we
are happy<BR>| with an approximate list of challenges (keeping in mind that
others will<BR>| become clear as we proceed, so there's no need to agonise over
this step),<BR>| we'll start with challenge 1. We'll throw up the challenge,
give a week or<BR>| so for contributors to propose data structures that can meet
the<BR>challenge,<BR>| then compare and discuss alternate solutions.<BR>|<BR>|
Gregor I think will shortly be posting a summary of the
meeting<BR>discussions.<BR>| We agreed, I believe, that the goal is to provide a
standard that can<BR>| adequately address the descriptive data requirements (ie
be a superset) of<BR>| all existing programs (e.g. Lucid, DELTA, DELTA Access,
Biolink) but not<BR>be<BR>| limited to existing programs. It should be able to
function as an<BR>| interchange standard, but should not be limited to that. Bob
Morris agreed<BR>| to provide shortly a discussion on interchange vs
interoperability<BR>standards<BR>| and conflicts that may arise in trying to
allow for both goals. We agreed<BR>| that XML will be the basis for the
standard.<BR>|<BR>| May the force be with us!<BR>|<BR>| Cheers -
k<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list