<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"><title>Re: [tdwg-content] What RDF is (Was Re: Idea for Discussion, Differentiating between "type's" of identifiers)</title>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">TDWG-TAG was not to be decommissioned. <br>
<br>
If this discussion on TDWG-Content is not being archived (as Alrin noticed), then there was a glitch in the reconfiguration. I think (hope) Markus can look into that tomorrow.<br>
<br>
Addressing Markus’ earlier question, I don’t think this is boring to people interested in TDWG-Content. It will just need to be explained and/or summarized to those not fully aware of the technical issues, particularly if we reach a consensus. A regular restatement of the choices and issues helps to keep people focused.<br>
<br>
-Stan <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/6/10 11:52 AM, "Peter DeVries" <<a href="pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">I think the tdwg-tag list was shutdown as part of a effort to condense the tdwg lists to those that had traffic?<br>
<br>
- Pete<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Markus Döring <<a href="m.doering@mac.com">m.doering@mac.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">I am wondering if this discussion and similar rdf, lsid topics should continue on tdwg-tag rather than tdwg-content.<br>
We might bore quite a few people...<br>
<br>
</span></font></blockquote></blockquote>
</body>
</html>