Name for the standard
kevin.thiele at BIGPOND.COM
Tue Sep 16 11:01:28 CEST 2003
yes, I agree that SDD (Standard for Descriptive Data) would do - I was just
looking for something a little more exciting. Cheers - k
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregor Hagedorn" <G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE>
To: <TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Name for the standard
> > >SDD stands for Structure of Descriptive Data - doesn't seem to me to
> > >do the job, and I just thought it would be sensible for the standard
> > >to have a different name from the group.
> > couldn't you just redefine the final product as 'Standard for
> > Descriptive Data', or if you want to be really creative and out there,
> > 'Descriptive Data Standard'?
> The workgroup name "Structure of descriptive data" was originally
> explicitly chosen to describe an analysis process, rather than the
> proposed standard.
> However, there is already some history of calling our thing
> "Structured Descriptive Data (SDD)". Used e.g. by Kevin Thiele, Bryan
> Heidorn, Donald Hobern... !
> I think SDD may be a good option for a new standard name if no other
> term is really convincing. However, I also like Chucks idea of
> putting all TDWG/GBIF standards under a common roof very much.
> Without the TDWG subgroup 12 month later no decision yet extension,
> of course.
> Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
> Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
> Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
> Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
> 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203
> Often wrong but never in doubt!
More information about the tdwg-content