Name for the standard
Chuck.Miller at MOBOT.ORG
Chuck.Miller at MOBOT.ORG
Wed Sep 17 13:01:12 CEST 2003
>Ultimately, this is about a Standard for Structured Data to Describe
>Biological Objects -- isn't it?
>I think that is what we are talking about... you could leave out
'structured data' too and it >will still make sense...
Leaving out "structured data", how about Biological Object Description
Markup Language - BiODML.
We could then have Biological Object Taxonomy Markup Language - BiOTML and
Biological Object Collection Markup Languag - BiOCML (now either Darwin
Core/DiGIR or ABCD?).
As an aside, won't all three of these languages need to fit together or
follow some consistent conventions to ultimately to feed data into a
complete GBIF data repository or global search service? For instance, don't
they all include taxon name data?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Croft [mailto:jrc at ANBG.GOV.AU]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:30 PM
To: TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: Name for the standard
>In the note below and in previous notes, there seems to be an emphasis
>on SDD in the contect of "taxonomy"; but wouldn't it be more
>appropriate to place the emphasis more in the context of biological
>objects (e.g., specimens), rather than abstract concepts (taxa)?
you are right, in part. Although the SDD activity is undertaken by
taxonomists, it extends beyond the core of taxonomy and nomenclature to
delineation and description of the objects themselves (taxa mostly, to a
lesser extent specimens). In fact, existing programs in this area such as
DELTA and LUCID handle nomenclature and taxonomy data extremely poorly...
>Even though the
>descriptive data may be applied directly to taxon concepts without an
>explicit reference to specific specimens/objects, ultimately the
>characters themselves that are being described are attached to a
>physical organism -- whether or not the specific physical organism is
>explicitly identified, or merely implied.
we we may be getting into the philosophical realm here... Our Rainforest
Key project actually scored recorded individual specimens for each taxon...
most DELTA and LUCID implementations amalgamate and abstract this to the
level of taxon or taxon concept and score at this level...
of course, SDD should ideally handle both approaches...
>Ultimately, this is about a Standard for Structured Data to Describe
>Biological Objects -- isn't it?
I think that is what we are talking about... you could leave out
'structured data' too and it will still make sense...
jim
~ Jim Croft ~ jrc at anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
------_=_NextPart_001_01C37D45.AE274350
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Name for the standard</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>>Ultimately, this is about a Standard for =
Structured Data to Describe </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>Biological Objects -- isn't it?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>>I think that is what we are talking =
about... you could leave out 'structured data' too and it =
>will still make sense...</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Leaving out "structured data", how about =
Biological Object Description Markup Language - BiODML.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We could then have Biological Object Taxonomy Markup =
Language - BiOTML and Biological Object Collection Markup Languag - =
BiOCML (now either Darwin Core/DiGIR or ABCD?). </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As an aside, won't all three of these languages need =
to fit together or follow some consistent conventions to ultimately to =
feed data into a complete GBIF data repository or global search =
service? For instance, don't they all include taxon name =
data? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Chuck</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Jim Croft [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:jrc at ANBG.GOV.AU">mailto:jrc at ANBG.GOV.AU</A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:30 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: Name for the standard</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>>In the note below and in previous notes, there =
seems to be an emphasis </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>on SDD in the contect of "taxonomy"; =
but wouldn't it be more </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>appropriate to place the emphasis more in the =
context of biological </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>objects (e.g., specimens), rather than abstract =
concepts (taxa)?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>you are right, in part. Although the SDD =
activity is undertaken by taxonomists, it extends beyond the core of =
taxonomy and nomenclature to delineation and description of the objects =
themselves (taxa mostly, to a lesser extent specimens). In fact, =
existing programs in this area such as DELTA and LUCID handle =
nomenclature and taxonomy data extremely poorly...</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>>Even though the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>descriptive data may be applied directly to =
taxon concepts without an </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>explicit reference to specific =
specimens/objects, ultimately the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>characters themselves that are being described =
are attached to a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>physical organism -- whether or not the specific =
physical organism is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>explicitly identified, or merely implied.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>we we may be getting into the philosophical realm =
here... Our Rainforest Key project actually scored recorded =
individual specimens for each taxon... most DELTA and LUCID =
implementations amalgamate and abstract this to the level of taxon or =
taxon concept and score at this level...</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>of course, SDD should ideally handle both =
approaches...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>>Ultimately, this is about a Standard for =
Structured Data to Describe </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>Biological Objects -- isn't it?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I think that is what we are talking about... =
you could leave out 'structured data' too and it will still make =
sense...</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>jim</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>~ Jim Croft ~ jrc at anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ =
www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list