SDD Schema in relationship to Prometheus_Response to Kevin
Paterson, Trevor
T.Paterson at NAPIER.AC.UK
Tue Mar 16 11:36:44 CET 2004
Kevin
Thanks for your reply, it is becoming much clearer to me that actually alot
of our thoughts are convergent ( probably because we are all thinking about
the same issues.... ). You have clarified a lot of ipoints, and i have added
a little more clarification below....
It looks like a worthwhile task would be to try and represent our angiosperm
terminology in SDD format at some stage ( time permitting etc...as ever).
This is probably more straightforward than representing our descriptive data
according to SDD as our underlying data model is quite different insome
aspects ( I think!!!).
cheers
Trevor
Trevor Paterson PhD
t.paterson at napier.ac.uk <mailto:t.paterson at napier.ac.uk>
School of Computing
Napier University
Merchiston Campus
10 Colinton Road
Edinburgh
Scotland
EH10 5DT
tel: +44 (0)131 455-2752
www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs175 <http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs175>
www.prometheusdb.org <http://www.prometheusdb.org/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Thiele [mailto:kevin.thiele at BIGPOND.COM]
Sent: 15 March 2004 22:33
To: TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: SDD Schema in relationship to Prometheus
Apologies: The previous post from me with this title was an unfinished
version sent off prematurely by my email editor. Please ignore and use this
one instead.
-----------------------------
Hi Trevor - thanks very much for your comments and comparative document -
this is really useful, and we need to get much more feedback like this.
The main difference between SDD and Prometheus seems to be that you are
working specifically on the basis of defining a controlled terminology
whereas SDD explicitly decided early on that a controlled terminology was
outside our scope. History will judge which approach is best.
[Paterson, Trevor]
a controlled terminology was not such a large feature of our work initially
- we were more interested in the model for saving 'character' data - however
it became obvious that the only way to allow unambiguous interpretation of
data - for reuse, comparison etc - was to provide full definitions. it then
seemed desirable that people would share definitions to allow
compatability.......whether this will be achieved by bottom up adoption is
an open question. Taxonomists don seem to like the idea of top down
imposition - tho they may be happier when it is restricted to quite a small
domain of users
We did have early discussions about a controlled terminology (see the list
archives for a history of this).One dificulty for us is that SDD is designed
to be biology-wide (indeed, we have even removed specific references to
biology, such as "taxon", because SDD is equally applicable to descriptions
of non-taxa such as diseases, nutrient deficiency syndromes, soils and
minerals. Perhaps here we have drawn our bow too wide, but we were informed
by the fact that at our Lisbon meeting all but one of the contributors who
were working with identification tools had removed their biology-specific
tags to become more general). Prometheus (as I understand it from your
document) is specifically botanical. This would be an intolerable
restriction for us given our brief.
[Paterson, Trevor]
We are constrained by the expertise of whoever we are collaborating with...
the taxonomists at RBGE are full partners in this project so the 'test
domains' reflect their interests and expertise ( or we will never get real
test data). We hope that our character model will be applicable to the whole
field of biological taxonomy - - and that specific ontologies/terminologies
could be developed to allow description of other groups ( mammals, insects
etc)
Obviously, a botany-wide controlled terminology is more achievable than a
biology-wide one. Personally, however, I think that you run the danger even
in botany with any controlled terminology of trying to force nature kicking
and screaming into small boxes, and do it an injustice therewith. I don't
know how any botany-wide controlled terminology could cope with the leaves
of Drosera auriculata, for instance, or the morphology of Podostemaceae. (In
fact, I wonder whether the dream of a controlled terminology is more likely
in a cold Northern Hemisphere climate than in the biodiverse South or
tropics?).
[Paterson, Trevor]
Yes - we know that diverse taxa would probably require specific ontologies.
We may be able to develope a system that allows a core central terminology -
with taxon specific extensions.....We want to allow MEANINGFUL comparison
of data - and often there is no need or sense in comparing data across
widely divergent taxa ie you would might want to compare the properties of
stalks on angiosperm flowers, but it is probably of no taxonomic interest to
compare these with the stalks of a slime mould fruiting body...............
In general, we have taken the view that a controlled terminology in
particular domains (e.g. legumes) may develop as an emergent property of
SDD, rather than imposed top-down.
[Paterson, Trevor]
Yes - this is the working model we have come round to...users develope an
ontology and share it with colleagues in a closely related field etc....
On more specific points from your document:
Complexity: SDD was scoped to be a superset of existing systems and
standards e.g. DELTA, Lucid, DeltaAcess, and also to accommodate future
developments that those of us working in the field can envisage but no-one's
really done yet (particularly federation issues - and you may be further
down this track than we are). This is part of the reason for the complexity,
>It is not clear to me whether SDD is proposing this schema as
>a unifying schema to which different description formats would map their
own schema
>or
>whether the SDD schema is being proposed as a schema for developers to
(partially) implement when designing applications
>and repositories for capturing descriptive data.
It is designed as a unifying standard, to allow lossless roundtripping
between applications. At the same time, we are struggling with how much
should be mandatory and how much optional (your second option)
>>>From our own collaborative experiences with botanical taxonomists, data
models and structures hold no interest to them in
>practice, and they find even our simple conceptual model of character
description complex to understand. Probably few working
>taxonomists would wish to interact at any level with the SDD schema and
applications would have to achieve this mapping
>transparently.
On this I'm sure you're right, and we have had many discussions within SDD
about this problem. There are differing views as to the importance of
taxonomists themselves coming to grips with SDD, as the standard itself will
generally be invisible to a taxonomist using an SDD-compliant application.
[Paterson, Trevor]
The problem is that someone has to write and implement the applications (
e.g. me !) - and they have to do this in collaboration with taxonomists - or
it will be perceived as an irrelevant imposition - -therefore it will always
be necessary to get at least some taxonomists from a variety of fields to
understand the schema...
>>>From my perspective actually it seems much easier for computer scientists to
get to grips with taxonomy rather than vice versa - ( although taxonmists
would be a bit defensive about this....)
Translation and multiple language representations: allowing multiple
languages is seen as a fundamental part of the SDD brief. Life would indeed
be much simpler if everyone spoke the same language, but they don't so we
need to handle that.
>It is not clear whether SDD proposes that a single document can include
multiple language representations, or whether these
>would form separate documents, conforming to the same standard
SDD can handle multiple language representations of every character string
within the one document.
[Paterson, Trevor]
Still not convinced allowing multiple language representations would mace
for good/accurate science
Multiple expertise levels
>I am similarly suspicious of the necessity for including the ability for
recording different expertise levels in one document format.
>Is SDD proposing/allowing multiple representations within the same document
: or just that the same format/standard can be
>used for documents aimed at different expertise level.
>
>There clearly is value in being able to extract/translate simple language
descriptions from complex data resources - as is
>necessary for compiling flora and keys from monographs and original
descriptions. However, is including the ability to describe
>descriptive data in language suitable for primary schoolchildren relevant
to an accurate scientific database of taxonomic data.
>[Again this would appear to be a political requirement??]
This is not a political requirement, but an attempt to broaden the
application of taxonomy beyond taxonomists (surely a requirement if the
taxonomic crisis is to be resolved). It also derives neatly from the XML
underpinning (XML is based on the idea of multiple representations of a
single document)
[Paterson, Trevor]
Yes I see where you are coming from - i think the probelm is that
taxonomists are concerned about accurate representation of their data for
their purposes - making a shareable version of this is not perceived as of
any value to them - they want a scientific tool to do their job - i am not
sure how /if we could encourage a dual markup approach - or whether
different 'markets' for descriptive data would exist independently -
Defining the descriptive terminology
>Are you suggesting that the SDD Terminology Section will be adequate and
appropriate to store
>and represent any (allowed) defined terminology?
Yes, we hope so. Do you think it will be inadequate?
[Paterson, Trevor]
It probably would be adequate to store Prometheus terminologies - with
minor tinkering, the semantics of the terminolgies could be saved just with
glossary entries and relationships etc - but would obviously require
interpetation by suitable applications. I cant understand concept trees well
enough to get a feel for whether they could store the semantics of a
terminolgy more explicitly.....
However, that is not to say SDD could cope with other terminolgies that
might have further unforseen relationships - there might need to be a
facility for recording 'user defined' relationships such as our stategroup
membership and restrictions between these and sets of structures - i think
that these type of relationships are representable in concept trees - but
would need a primer/ turotial to show me how.
>Is the standard going to allow descriptions to reference other defined
terminologies?
It will be possible to outsource the terminology section, so if a group
creates a controlled vocabulary, that could be referenced in multiple SDD
documents. So presumably Prometheus could be the source of a controlled
vocabulary that other users (of they found it adequate) could reference.
>Would SDD only accept Data marked up in an SDD terminology?
Yes - or do I misunderstand this question?
[Paterson, Trevor]
If i understand your previous remark - you could have completely external
termnologies - that SDD 'knows' nothing about the structure and semantics -
so it would have to accept 'non-SDD' terminology
>Would existing terminologies have to be translated/mapped/redescribed in
SDD format?
Any existing terminology can be represented in SDD, so there will be no
remapping necessary.
[Paterson, Trevor]
Again this will only be knowable if people try doing it. Obviously if there
is a standard structure people would be encouraged to use it - but
prexisting description ontologies ( eg PlantOnology and GeneOntology) would
not want to retrofit to the standard....even if there is no ' rdesign or
remapping necessary - there is the matter of re-expressing it in an SDD
format
>Who is going to create terminologies, e.g.gusers on an adhoc basis, or
expert user groups?
As above, these may develop particularly for some groups (e.g. ferns,
legumes), but some users may choose to stay outside such a system (there
will be benefits and costs of using a controlled vocabulary, so people will
have to weigh it up for themselves). SDD itself is agnostic.
[Paterson, Trevor]
Almost our opinion - but we are not agnostic - we believe 'interpretability'
and 'reusability' are Gods, and we should proselytize on their behalfs -
gently of course - by offering only carrots and no sticks...
>Is it an aim to promote re-use and sharing of terminologies?
It would be a desirable outcome, but we hope it evolves bottom-up rather
than being imposed top-down.
[Paterson, Trevor]
Sure
>Is there going to be policing of SDD terminologies, e.g. maintaining
versioning, additions etc?
Versioning will be handled within SDD, but there can be no possibility of
policing a system
[Paterson, Trevor]
This what really worries the taxonomists - imposed standards reducing the
flexibility and expressivity of their descriptions - and hatred of a police
state. I think standardisation WILL be perceived to lead to a loss of
expressivity - but as often one person's expressivity is another'; s
incomprehensivity to an outsider this seems like potentially 'a good thing'
( in small doses obviously)........
>How was the terminology section created - by examining examples of
terminology specifications,
>ontology representations etc?
We have had a mix of off-the-top-of-the-head speculation as to how best to
do things, and proofing of concepts against real-world examples. I would
have liked to see more proofing going on during development, but this has
been hard to maintain, and may be to our cost. We are nbow at a phase where
several groups are trting to implement SDD-compliance for their systems -
this will be the proof of the pudding.
Note also that SDD is currently v0.9 - with the explicit statement on
release that everything may change if we find that the proofing fails.
>Does it form a standard template for storing a terminology?
What do you mean by this. It provides the standard schema for representing
an (undefined) terminology.
>Is it compatible with any existing tools, standards or formats - e.g.
ontology editors?
We have specifically made it very general. There is currently no existing
tool that can handle SDD. Hopefull this will change shortly.
[Paterson, Trevor]
Keep me posted
----------------------------------
So does Prometheus have any data yet, or is it still at the model stage? It
would be very interesting to try representing Prometheus data in SDD.
[Paterson, Trevor] to date we have
*
the model ( and a data base implementation to save model compliant
data)
*
a tool for creating simple terminologies - with definitions,
PartOf, Typeof, Stategroup relations etc
*
a prototype angiosperm terminology/ontology
*
a prototype tool for using onologies to specify project description
templates ( proformas)
*
which also allows recordng of specimen descriptions
*
the ability to save these descriptions to the database in the model
compliant format
and we are currently getting user testing done on the prototype by the
taxonomists, who are making proformas adn saving specimen descriptions. We
are just about ready to use the tool for a 'real' project if we can get time
and interest to do this...eg for a small taxonomic revision. We are rapidly
approaching the end of our project funding however.. so it may switch to
being a 'back burner' project....
Cheers - k
----- Original Message -----
From: Paterson, Trevor <mailto:T.Paterson at NAPIER.AC.UK>
To: TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU <mailto:TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:41 PM
Subject: SDD Schema in relationship to Prometheus
Gregor
I have written a rough document considering several aspects of the
SDD-schema - largely interpreted with reference to our Prometheus Database
model for descriptive data. It seems easier to keep this all together,
rather than post it to various sections on twiki, so i am attaching it here
My main problems in interpreting the schema were the lack of documentation (
as always...) especially for the conceptually complex parts like concept
trees. I think clear, visual summary models for description, characters,
concept trees etc would help a novice to get to grips with the concepts, and
might make some of the complexities more tractable. I do worry that the
overall schema is over complex and 'trying to do too much in one go' - eg
considering multiple language and expertise representations, although I am
sure that there are good political reasons for everything.....
yours
trevor
Trevor Paterson PhD
t.paterson at napier.ac.uk <mailto:t.paterson at napier.ac.uk>
School of Computing
Napier University
Merchiston Campus
10 Colinton Road
Edinburgh
Scotland
EH10 5DT
tel: +44 (0)131 455-2752
www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs175 <http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs175>
www.prometheusdb.org <http://www.prometheusdb.org/>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C40B4A.F525D800
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Kevin</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks
for your reply, it is becoming much clearer to me that actually alot of our
thoughts are convergent ( probably because we are all thinking about the same
issues.... ). You have clarified a lot of ipoints, and i have added a
little more clarification below....</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It
looks like a worthwhile task would be to try and represent our angiosperm
terminology in SDD format at some stage ( time permitting etc...as ever). This
is probably more straightforward than representing our descriptive data
according to SDD as our underlying data model is quite different insome aspects
( I think!!!).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Trevor</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>Trevor Paterson PhD</FONT></B> <BR><B><FONT
face=Arial size=2><A
href="mailto:t.paterson at napier.ac.uk">t.paterson at napier.ac.uk</A></FONT></B>
</P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>School of Computing</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Napier University</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Merchiston
Campus</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>10 Colinton
Road
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Edinburgh
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Scotland
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>EH10 5DT</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>tel:
+44 (0)131 455-2752</FONT> </P>
<P><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs175">www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs175<BR></A><A
href="http://www.prometheusdb.org/">www.prometheusdb.org</A></FONT></STRONG>
</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Kevin Thiele
[mailto:kevin.thiele at BIGPOND.COM]<BR><B>Sent:</B> 15 March 2004
22:33<BR><B>To:</B> TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: SDD
Schema in relationship to Prometheus<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Apologies: The previous post from me with this
title was an unfinished version sent off prematurely by my email editor.
Please ignore and use this one instead.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-----------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Trevor - thanks very much for your comments
and comparative document - this is really useful, and we need to get much more
feedback like this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>The main difference between SDD and
Prometheus seems to be that you are working specifically on the basis of
defining a controlled terminology whereas SDD explicitly decided early on that
a controlled terminology was outside our scope. History will judge which
approach is best.<BR><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>[Paterson, Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>a controlled terminology was not such a large feature
of our work initially - we were more interested in the model
for saving 'character' data - however it became obvious that the only way to
allow unambiguous interpretation of data - for reuse, comparison etc -
was to provide full definitions. it then seemed desirable that people would
share definitions to allow compatability.......whether this will be achieved
by bottom up adoption is an open question. Taxonomists don seem to like the
idea of top down imposition - tho they may be happier when it is restricted
to quite a small domain of
users </FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>We did have early discussions about a
controlled terminology (see the list archives for a history of this).One
dificulty for us is that SDD is designed to be biology-wide (indeed, we have
even removed specific references to biology, such as "taxon", because SDD is
equally applicable to descriptions of non-taxa such as diseases, nutrient
deficiency syndromes, soils and minerals. Perhaps here we have drawn our bow
too wide, but we were informed by the fact that at our Lisbon meeting all but
one of the contributors who were working with identification tools had removed
their biology-specific tags to become more general). Prometheus (as I
understand it from your document) is specifically botanical. This would be an
intolerable restriction for us given our brief.<BR><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>We are constrained by the expertise of whoever we are
collaborating with... the taxonomists at RBGE are full partners in this
project so the 'test domains' reflect their interests</FONT> <FONT
color=#0000ff> and expertise ( or we will never get real test data). We hope
that our character model will be applicable to the whole field of biological
taxonomy - - and that specific ontologies/terminologies could be
developed to allow description of other groups ( mammals, insects
etc) </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Obviously, a botany-wide controlled
terminology is more achievable than a biology-wide one. Personally, however, I
think that you run the danger even in botany with any controlled terminology
of trying to force nature kicking and screaming into small boxes, and do it an
injustice therewith. I don't know how any botany-wide controlled terminology
could cope with the leaves of <EM>Drosera auriculata</EM>, for instance, or
the morphology of Podostemaceae. (In fact, I wonder whether the dream of a
controlled terminology is more likely in a cold Northern Hemisphere
climate than in the biodiverse South or tropics?).<BR><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>Yes - we know that diverse taxa would probably require
specific ontologies. We may be able to develope a system that allows a core
central terminology - with taxon specific extensions.....We want to allow
MEANINGFUL comparison of data - and often there is no need or sense in
comparing data across widely divergent taxa</FONT> <FONT color=#0000ff>
ie you would might want to compare the properties of stalks on angiosperm
flowers, but it is probably of no taxonomic interest to compare these with the
stalks of a slime mould fruiting
body...............</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>In general, we have taken the view that a
controlled terminology in particular domains (e.g. legumes) may develop as an
emergent property of SDD, rather than imposed top-down.<BR><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>Yes - this is the working model we have come round
to...users develope an ontology and share it with colleagues in a closely
related field etc....</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On more specific points from your
document:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Complexity</STRONG>: SDD was scoped to be
a superset of existing systems and standards e.g. DELTA, Lucid, DeltaAcess,
and also to accommodate future developments that those of us working in the
field can envisage but no-one's really done yet (particularly federation
issues - and you may be further down this track than we are). This is part of
the reason for the complexity,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; COLOR: #333333; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>>It is not clear to me whether SDD is proposing this schema as
<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; COLOR: #333333; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 72.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>>a unifying schema to which different description formats would
map their own schema <BR>>or <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; COLOR: #333333; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 72.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>>whether the SDD schema is being proposed as a schema for
developers to (partially) implement when designing applications
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; COLOR: #333333; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 72.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>>and repositories for capturing descriptive
data.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2>It is designed as a unifying standard, to allow lossless
roundtripping between applications. At the same time, we are struggling with
how much should be mandatory and how much optional (your second
option)</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>>From our own collaborative experiences with botanical
taxonomists, data models and structures hold no interest to them in
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>>practice, and they find even our simple conceptual model of
character description complex to understand. Probably few working
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>>taxonomists would wish to interact at any level with the SDD
schema and applications would have to achieve this mapping
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial>>transparently.<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></o:p></SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT
color=#000000><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>On this I'm sure you're right, and
we have had many discussions within SDD about this problem. There are
differing views as to the importance of taxonomists themselves coming to grips
with SDD, as the standard itself will generally be invisible
to a taxonomist using an SDD-compliant application.<BR><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT
color=#000000><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>The problem is that someone has
to write and implement the applications ( e.g. me !) - and they have
to do this in collaboration with taxonomists - or it will be perceived as an
irrelevant imposition - -therefore it will always be necessary to get at least
some taxonomists from a variety of fields to understand
the schema...</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT
color=#000000><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>From my perspective actually it
seems much easier for computer scientists to get to grips with taxonomy rather
than vice versa - ( although taxonmists would be a bit defensive about
this....)</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2><STRONG>Translation and multiple language
representations</STRONG>: allowing multiple languages is seen as a
fundamental part of the SDD brief. Life would indeed be much simpler if
everyone spoke the same language, but they don't so we need to handle that.
</FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">>It
is not clear whether SDD proposes that a single document can include multiple
language representations, or whether these </SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">>would
form separate documents, conforming to the same
standard</SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">SDD
can handle multiple language representations of every character string within
the one document.<BR><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>Still not convinced allowing
multiple language representations would mace for good/accurate
science</FONT> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P><SPAN
lang=EN-GB style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 18.0pt"><B><SPAN
lang=EN-GB>Multiple expertise
levels<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>I am
similarly suspicious of the necessity for including the ability for recording
different expertise levels in one document format. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>Is SDD
proposing/allowing multiple representations within the same document : or just
that the same format/standard can be </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>used for
documents aimed at different expertise level.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><o:p>><EM> </EM></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>There
clearly is value in being able to extract/translate simple language
descriptions from complex data resources - as is </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>necessary
for compiling flora and keys from monographs and original descriptions.
However, is including the ability to describe </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB>>descriptive data in language suitable for primary
schoolchildren relevant to an accurate scientific database of taxonomic data.
</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB>>[Again
this would appear to be a political requirement??]</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN><FONT
face=Arial size=2>This is not a political requirement, but an attempt to
broaden the application of taxonomy beyond taxonomists (surely a requirement
if the taxonomic crisis is to be resolved). It also derives neatly from
the XML underpinning (XML is based on the idea of multiple
representations of a single document)</FONT> <BR><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Yes I see
where you are coming from - i think the probelm is that taxonomists are
concerned about accurate representation of their data for their purposes -
making a shareable version of this is not perceived as of any value to
them - they want a scientific tool to do their job - i am not sure how /if we
could encourage a dual markup approach - or whether different 'markets'
for descriptive data would exist independently -</FONT> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="COLOR: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></SPAN></FONT></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face=Arial
size=2><STRONG>Defining the descriptive terminology</STRONG></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT> </P>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Are you suggesting that the SDD
Terminology Section will be adequate and appropriate to store
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>and represent any (allowed) defined
terminology?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Yes, we hope so. Do you think it will
be inadequate?<BR><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>It probably would be adequate to store Prometheus
terminologies</FONT> <FONT color=#0000ff> - with minor tinkering, the
semantics of the terminolgies could be saved just with glossary entries and
relationships etc - but would obviously require interpetation by suitable
applications. I cant understand concept trees well enough to get a feel for
whether they could store the semantics of a terminolgy more
explicitly.....</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004>However, that is not to say SDD could cope with
other terminolgies that might have further unforseen relationships -
there might need to be a facility for recording 'user defined' relationships
such as our stategroup membership and restrictions between these and sets of
structures - i think that these type of relationships are representable
in concept trees - but would need a primer/ turotial to show me
how.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Is the standard going to allow
descriptions to reference other defined terminologies?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>It will be possible to outsource the
terminology section, so if a group creates a controlled vocabulary, that
could be referenced in multiple SDD documents. So presumably Prometheus could
be the source of a controlled vocabulary that other users (of they found it
adequate) could reference.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Would SDD only accept Data marked up in
an SDD terminology?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Yes - or do I misunderstand this
question?<BR><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>If i understand your previous remark - you could have completely
external termnologies - that SDD 'knows' nothing about the structure and
semantics - so it would have to accept 'non-SDD'
terminology</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Would existing terminologies have to be
translated/mapped/redescribed in SDD format?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Any existing terminology can be
represented in SDD, so there will be no remapping necessary.<BR><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>Again this will only be knowable if people try doing it.
Obviously if there is a standard structure people would be encouraged to use
it - but prexisting description ontologies ( eg PlantOnology and GeneOntology)
would not want to retrofit to the standard....even if there is no ' rdesign or
remapping necessary - there is the matter of re-expressing it in an SDD
format</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Who is going to create terminologies,
e.g.gusers on an adhoc basis, or expert user groups?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>As above, these may develop
particularly for some groups (e.g. ferns, legumes), but some users may choose
to stay outside such a system (there will be benefits and costs of using a
controlled vocabulary, so people will have to weigh it up for themselves). SDD
itself is agnostic.<BR><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>Almost our opinion - but we are not agnostic - we believe
'interpretability' and 'reusability' are Gods, and we should proselytize on
their behalfs - gently of course - by offering only carrots and no
sticks...</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Is it an aim to promote re-use and
sharing of terminologies?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>It would be a desirable outcome, but
we hope it evolves bottom-up rather than being imposed top-down.<BR><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>Sure</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Is there going to be policing of SDD
terminologies, e.g. maintaining versioning, additions etc?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>Versioning will be handled within SDD, but
there can be no possibility of policing a system<BR><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004><FONT color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor]</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>This what really worries the taxonomists - imposed standards
reducing the flexibility and expressivity of their descriptions - and
hatred of a police state. I think standardisation WILL be perceived to
lead to a loss of expressivity - but as often one person's expressivity is
another'; s incomprehensivity to an outsider this seems like potentially 'a
good thing' ( in small doses
obviously)........ </FONT> </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004> </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>How was the terminology section created
- by examining examples of terminology specifications, </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>ontology representations
etc?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>We have had a mix of
off-the-top-of-the-head speculation as to how best to do things, and proofing
of concepts against real-world examples. I would have liked to see more
proofing going on during development, but this has been hard to maintain, and
may be to our cost. We are nbow at a phase where several groups are trting to
implement SDD-compliance for their systems - this will be the proof of the
pudding.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>Note also that SDD is currently v0.9 - with
the explicit statement on release that everything may change if we find that
the proofing fails.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Does it form a standard template for
storing a terminology? </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>What do you mean by this. It provides the
standard schema for representing an (undefined)
terminology.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>>Is it compatible with any existing
tools, standards or formats - e.g. ontology editors?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>We have specifically made it very
general. There is currently no existing tool that can handle SDD. Hopefull
this will change shortly.<BR><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>[Paterson,
Trevor] </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>Keep me posted</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial
size=2>----------------------------------</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>So does Prometheus have any data yet,
or is it still at the model stage? It would be very interesting to try
representing Prometheus data in SDD.<BR><SPAN class=902353710-16032004><FONT
color=#0000ff>[Paterson, Trevor] to date we
have </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<UL>
<LI>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004>the model ( and a data base implementation to save
model compliant data)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004>a tool for creating simple terminologies -
with definitions, PartOf, Typeof, Stategroup relations
etc </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004>a prototype angiosperm
terminology/ontology</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004>a prototype tool for using onologies to specify
project description templates (
proformas)</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004>which also allows recordng of specimen
descriptions</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004>the ability to save these descriptions to the
database in the model compliant
format</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI></UL>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004>and we are currently getting user testing done on the
prototype by the taxonomists, who are making proformas adn saving specimen
descriptions. We are just about ready to use the tool for a 'real' project if
we can get time and interest to do this...eg for a small taxonomic revision.
We are rapidly approaching the end of our project funding however.. so it may
switch to being a 'back burner' project....</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=902353710-16032004></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt"><SPAN
lang=EN-GB><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cheers - k</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=T.Paterson at NAPIER.AC.UK
href="mailto:T.Paterson at NAPIER.AC.UK">Paterson, Trevor</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
href="mailto:TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU">TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 15, 2004 9:41
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> SDD Schema in relationship to
Prometheus</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=977562610-15032004>Gregor</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=977562610-15032004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=977562610-15032004>I have written a
rough document considering several aspects of the SDD-schema - largely
interpreted with reference to our Prometheus Database model for descriptive
data. It seems easier to keep this all together, rather than post it to
various sections on twiki, so i am attaching it here</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=977562610-15032004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=977562610-15032004>My main problems
in interpreting the schema were the lack of documentation ( as always...)
especially for the conceptually complex parts like concept trees. I think
clear, visual summary models for description, characters, concept
trees etc would help a novice to get to grips with the concepts, and might
make some of the complexities more tractable. I do worry that the overall
schema is over complex and 'trying to do too much in one go' - eg
considering multiple language and expertise representations, although I am
sure that there are good political reasons for
everything.....</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=977562610-15032004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=977562610-15032004>yours</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=977562610-15032004>trevor</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=977562610-15032004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=977562610-15032004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>Trevor Paterson PhD</FONT></B> <BR><B><FONT
face=Arial size=2><A
href="mailto:t.paterson at napier.ac.uk">t.paterson at napier.ac.uk</A></FONT></B>
</P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>School of Computing</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Napier University</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Merchiston
Campus</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>10 Colinton
Road
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Edinburgh
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Scotland
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>EH10 5DT</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>tel:
+44 (0)131 455-2752</FONT> </P>
<P><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs175">www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs175<BR></A><A
href="http://www.prometheusdb.org/">www.prometheusdb.org</A></FONT></STRONG>
</P>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
More information about the tdwg-content
mailing list