<!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 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Microsoft Sans Serif">
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006>Anna & Chris,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006>The generation of Level 1 records is a
possibility, although I'm not sure in which circumstances that would be used.
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006>As I understood it, Level 1 was to be a
citation and level 2 a full bibliographic record. If that is so, it would seem
to make more sense to go in the opposite direction, so that the details of a
publication could be tracked down from the citation for those that want to get
them. The citation then has a resource discovery role, leading to richer data -
a fairly common scenario. One of level 1 or 2 could
usefully contain an LSID which would resolve to full text from (for
example) the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) once it gets going, or to other
sources of the digitised version.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006>Does that sound likely?</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006>Neil</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=552304408-09032006></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
TDWG-Lit-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:TDWG-Lit-bounces@lists.tdwg.org]<B>On
Behalf Of </B>Anna Weitzman<BR><B>Sent:</B> 08 March 2006 17:42<BR><B>To:</B>
TDWG-Lit@lists.tdwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Tdwg-lit] Boundaries: Levels 1
& 2<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Microsoft Sans Serif; COLOR: #000000">
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>Hi all,</DIV>
<DIV>In this and the next couple of messages, we're going to try to
summarize what has been discussed so far and refocus the discussion
somewhat.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There has been some level of discussion, especially from Donald,
Gregor, and Roger about the form the standards should take. For now,
we would like to <SPAN class=423504716-08032006> leave that
aside </SPAN>from this particular discussion as<SPAN
class=423504716-08032006>, I think we all agree, </SPAN>that seems to
be a more generalized discussion that is going to affect all ongoing TDWG
standards.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=423504716-08032006> We think it would be more
productive if the</SPAN> group puts its focus<SPAN
class=423504716-08032006> </SPAN>on contents of the standards rather
than form at the current time.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It also appears that there is some confusion between what is included
in levels 1 & 2. Level 1, as originally defined, is not
intended to include metadata about the publication. To us that seems
to include original language and translation/transliteration metadata
which<SPAN class=423504716-08032006>, </SPAN> while it is certainly
relevant, might better be placed in level 2 with the rafts of other
metadata. We can see an argument for inclusion of certain metadata in
Level 1, although this goes against taxonomic custom and opens the door to
adding lots of metadata to Level 1, which seems inappropriate.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That does bring up the issue of relationship between the two
standards. Should one of the uses of Level 2 be the generation of
Level 1 citation(s) in various languages which then tie back to
metadata in Level 2 about the language used as well as all of the other
level 2 metadata?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers,</DIV>
<DIV>Anna & Chris</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>