<div dir="ltr">Thanks, Hilmar. Yes, with my Executive hat on I need clear guidance on what awaits TDWG Executive action. If the rest needs more discussion or is ready to be sent to the Executive but hasn't yet been, that's another thread.<div>
<br></div><div>Thanks for summarizing the issues, Steve.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Hilmar Lapp <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hlapp@nescent.org" target="_blank">hlapp@nescent.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Markus - am I right that this issue isn't at an actionable state yet? From the tracker it appears that discussion is still ongoing and consensus has not been achieved yet.<div>
<br></div><div>I don't mean to be a PITA but I'm with Steve in that it's really key here to keep this thread focused solely on those issues that have already been settled and are merely awaiting being inducted into the official standard. Like Steve, I see great danger in any attempt to bundle these with other issues and requests that aren't clearly at this same point.</div>
<div><br></div><div> -hilmar </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Markus Döring <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mdoering@gbif.org" target="_blank">mdoering@gbif.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Thanks for pushing this Steve!</div><div><br></div><div>There is one further DwC issue that dates back nearly 2 years now that I am really keen on getting settled which is a newly proposed term dwc:genericName.</div>
<div><div>The term is being used by GBIF and Catalog of Life in live systems since last year anticipating it would get ratified rather soon after long discussions we had:</div></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=227" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=227</a></div>
<div>for background discussion see also:</div><div><a href="https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=</a>151</div><span><font color="#888888"><div>
<br></div><div><br></div><div>Markus</div></font></span><div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On 25 Jul 2014, at 15:22, Steve Baskauf <<a href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Cyndi,<br>
OK, here is a list of items related to Darwin Core: <br>
<br>
<b>Issue 1.</b> The draft Darwin Core RDF Guide was completed
recommended for adoption by the RDF/OWL Task Group in July 2013 after a
process described on the proposal cover page [1]. There was no
precedent for making an addition of this sort, so in October 2013 John
Wieczorek requested guidance from the executive (see his email just
forwarded to the list).<br>
<br>
<b>Action needed:</b> Guidance from the executive about how to handle
this kind of change. Possible revision of section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF
Guide proposal depending on the outcome of issue 2.<br>
<br>
<b>Issue 2.</b> At the documenting Darwin Core meeting at TDWG meeting
in November 2013, there was discussion and apparent consensus for
making a number of changes to the definitions of Darwin Core classes.
The details can be read at [2]. An ad hoc group of interested parties
held online meetings in December to hammer out definitions. In January
2014, those definitions were entered in the Darwin Core issue tracker
[3] as issues 205-226. <br>
<br>
<b>Action needed:</b> Initiation of 30 day comment period. It is not
clear who should do this - probably either John Wieczorek (who has done
this in the past) or maybe Greg Whitbread if the TAG has resumed
functioning (but that is really a different issue that should not be
allowed to derail these issues). <b>Note: </b>If these proposed
changes are adopted (and they probably should be as a block because
they are really a package), then section 2.3.1.5 of the RDF Guide [4]
will need to be rewritten. <br>
<br>
There are other issues, but putting them in this email would make a
complicated situation worse.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf</a> section entitled
"What process has/will occur in the ratification of this proposal?"<br>
[2] <a href="https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/detail?id=204</a><br>
[3] <a href="https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list</a><br>
[4]
<a href="https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_to_be_used_for_type_declarations_of_resources_de" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdfGuideProposal#2.3.1.5_Classes_to_be_used_for_type_declarations_of_resources_de</a><br>
<br>
Cynthia Parr wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will be happy to take up the VoMaG report and the status of
the Technical Architecture Group in the TDWG Executive. I know that a
lot of work went into the report, and I definitely appreciate the huge
volunteer effort. It is true that the Kenya/Sweden meetings have
consumed much of the Exec's energy of late, and we are all doing our
best to juggle our many responsibilities.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Otherwise, if there are more specific requests to the Executive
from the Darwin Core review manager (or anybody) on the issues that
Joel is calling attention to (204-226), I'm not aware of them. Not
sure if Steve's remarks about process are directed at John (as review
manager) or at the TDWG Executive (or possibly both) but I'm happy to
help as I can. Just need a bit more clarity (and brevity --
communication is hard enough given how distributed and multi-national
we are!)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Definitely I would be interested in participating in an RCN
proposal to help address the challenge of running our all-volunteer
organization. Arguably, as current TDWG chair I should lead the
proposal. I can't commit to this officially just at the moment but as
plans coalesce we can see if this is something I'll be able to do. I've
already had some conversations with other members since Florence about
the idea of finding funds to support coordination, and I would be happy
to organize a small group towards concrete action. Please contact me
offline if you haven't already expressed interest in being part of this
group.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cyndy</div>
<div>TDWG Chair</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Chuck
Miller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Chuck.Miller@mobot.org" target="_blank">Chuck.Miller@mobot.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Steve,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">I
guess I needed to be more specific. I meant all of the administration
and leadership of TDWG are volunteer. And those volunteers must put
in a lot of volunteer time on everything required for TDWG
administration, including the ratification process. This year I know
that dealing with the annual conference issues and changing venues in
the middle of the year has been very time demanding on those
volunteers. Having been in the situation, I have a lot of empathy for
those on the Executive Committee who must deal with all of TDWG’s
issues while holding down a full time, paid job.</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Chuck
</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><br></div>
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;border-width:1pt medium medium;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steven J. Baskauf<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chuck Miller; <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [tdwg-content] [External] RE: Proposed changes
to Darwin Core</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><div> <br></div><p class="MsoNormal">I totally understand the challenge to getting
things done in the context of TDWG being a volunteer organization. But
that isn't the problem with the DwC class proposals and the RDF Guide.
In both of those cases, unpaid volunteers DID put in the many hours of
work necessary to do the writing and achieve consensus within a working
group. The problem is that those proposals have been held up by many
months because nobody has made administrative decisions necessary to
move them forward. We don't need a grant or more volunteer hours to
fix that problem.<br>
<br>
The case of fixing the more systematic problems with vocabulary
management is a little more complicated. But again a group of
volunteers put in many hours to assemble recommendations of the VoMaG
report. Somebody needs to act on those recommendations - accept,
reject, appoint a task group to work on a draft standard or whatever.
Here as well, the problem is lack of action, not lack of volunteer
time. <br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
On 7/23/2014 10:08 AM, Chuck Miller wrote: </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">I
want to make a point of clarification. There is a TDWG Technical
Architecture Group (TAG) convened by Greg Whitbread and there were a
couple of TAG meetings in Florence, but sustaining the needed level of
activity between annual meetings has always been an issue. However, a
significant point to note is the TAG is not involved in the standards
ratification process. </span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">The
TDWG standards ratification process is described at <a href="http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/" target="_blank">http://www.tdwg.org/about-tdwg/process/</a>. The main
actor in the process is a Review Manager, appointed by the Executive
Committee, who shepherds a proposed standard through expert and public
reviews. The final decision to ratify is made by the Executive
Committee after the reviews are completed and reported by the Review
Manager.</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">The
process for making revisions to a TDWG standard is less clear and needs
more documentation. There was some opinion early on that standards
should only be replaced, not revised. In practice, there have been a
few revisions to DwC approved by the Executive Committee in recent
years and as I recall the proposals for those revisions were submitted
by John Wieiczorek, the DwC Task Group convenor, directly to the
Executive Committee after a period of public comment. In John’s
proposals the DwC issue tracker was used to reference the proposed
revisions along with some summarization from John and the revisions
were discussed/decided at Exec meetings at the annual conferences. </span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">The
volunteer basis of TDWG presents challenges for maintaining a high
tempo. Something like a funded RCN would help a lot to enable some
focused attention, at least for a while.</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Chuck</span></p>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Robert Guralnick<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Steve Baskauf<br>
<b>Cc:</b> TDWG Content Mailing List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [tdwg-content] Proposed changes to Darwin Core</span></p><div> <br></div>
<div>
<div><div><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><br></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> Hi
everyone --- Excuse the brevity, but I am headed out for an annual
vacation and will attempt (and likely fail) to ignore email for the
next week. However, the topics raised by Joel and Steve are important
and I do have some quick comments, separated by topic (one on term
issues and one on governance).</span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><br>
1) To my surprise, I am no longer in favor of a DwC:Organism addition
and attendant other changes (if I ever was in favor). I think this
reflects a shift in my thinking -- I have come to see the Darwin Core
as really about biocollections and material samples or observations,
making the specification of "individuals" or "organisms" less a
compelling need. I feel that "individual/organism" is actually fraught
with a fair amount of peril, when knowledge modeled. What we really
deal with are samples --- the individual/organism is there ephemerally
within the context of the collecting event, and sometimes not even then
(road kill). I just can't see why we need it at this point.</span></p>
</div>
<div><div><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><br></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">2) Steve
has a very good point about TAG and decision making. The larger
question is "what to do". Here is a thought. A few of us have agreed
to weekly (virtual) meetings about BCO and DwC integration (John
Wieczorek, John Deck, Ramona Walls, myself and a couple others) --- we
haven't always come through but setting aside the time is important and
useful. Why not reconstitute the TAG or at least a subgroup and bring
BCO/DwC kinds of activities together more firmly. We could open those
meetings more broadly to deal with continuing issues with DwC, while
also keeping our eye on BCO and its growth. I also see a real
opportunity here (and I am not the only one) for funding this kind of
work, in the context of NSF's RCN (Research Coordination Network)
framework. We clearly have the need and such funding could allow us
the chance to meet more regularly than once a year. If there is
interest, I am willing to consider the work needed to make this happen. </span></p>
</div>
<div><div><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><br></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Best, Rob</span></p>
</div>
<div><div><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><br></div>
</div>
<div><div> <br></div>
</div>
</div>
<div><div style="margin-bottom:12pt"> <br></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Steve Baskauf
<<a href="mailto:steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu" target="_blank">steve.baskauf@vanderbilt.edu</a>> wrote:</p><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for bringing these issues up, Joel.<br>
<br>
To clarify the situation, the changes that have been proposed should be<br>
handled in accordance with the Darwin Core term change policy [1]. If<br>
I'm interpreting that policy correctly, the changes would fall in<br>
sections 3.3 or 3.4. The proposed changes that redefine existing terms<br>
(like dwc:Occurrence) would be "Semantic changes in Darwin Core terms"<br>
(section 3.3) and the changes that create new terms (like<br>
dwc:LivingSpecimen) would be "Addition of Darwin Core term declarations<br>
to exisiting Darwin Core namespaces (section 3.4). The exact procedure<br>
in both sections is a bit murky because it presupposes a functioning<br>
Technical Architecture Group (TAG) that judges the merit of the proposal<br>
and (at least in the case of 3.4) calls for a request for comments<br>
(RFC). Historically, there has not been a functioning TAG, so John<br>
Wiecorek (shepherd of Darwin Core) has traditionally made the call for a<br>
30 day RFC on tdwg-content. He hasn't done that yet, to my knowledge.<br>
I don't think that the Term Change Policy actually requires action by<br>
the Executive, but I think that in actuality it has made the final call<br>
since there hasn't been any TAG to do the job.<br>
<br>
I have to say that I'm puzzled by the lack of motion on this proposal.<br>
The usual reason for failure of proposed changes is "lack of<br>
consensus". However, in this case, there seemed (to me) to be<br>
widespread support for these changes at the Documenting Darwin Core<br>
workshop at the TDWG meeting in November. In the discussions held in<br>
December by the ad hoc group (whose purpose was to hammer out the actual<br>
proposed definitions), there was a shocking degree of consensus about<br>
everything except for the name of the one class (organism/individual).<br>
So I don't understand why the proposed changes haven't gone to public<br>
comment months ago.<br>
<br>
The DwC RDF Guide [3] (which Joel mentioned) has similarly languished<br>
for a year now, having already undergone numerous revisions and having<br>
been endorsed by the task group that created it. The only reason I<br>
haven't pushed harder on moving it forward is that it would need to be<br>
revised if the proposed DwC class changes were adopted. So lack of<br>
progress on the proposed term changes is holding up progress on that as<br>
well.<br>
<br>
The real problem here is that the TDWG standards maintenance process is<br>
broken. We need a clear and usable system that covers all of the TDWG<br>
technical standard vocabularies (i.e. DwC, Audubon Core, and any future<br>
ones). This was discussed in detail in several sessions at the last<br>
TDWG meeting with some concrete proposals put on the table [4]. It was<br>
my impression that this issue was very high on the agenda of the<br>
Executive. However, we are now nine month past that meeting and I<br>
haven't seen any visible signs that there has been any progress on this<br>
front. Is TDWG actually a standards organization or not? I'm not sure<br>
anymore.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/namespace/index.htm#classesofchanges</a><br>
[2] doesn't currently exist in the dwc: namespace; it's in the dwctype:<br>
namespace, which we have proposed to deprecate<br>
[3] <a href="https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/tdwg-rdf/wiki/DwcRdf</a><br>
[4] <a href="http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246" target="_blank">http://www.gbif.org/resources/2246</a> plus several
in-person meetings<br>
at TDWG</p>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>
joel sachs wrote:<br>
> Hi John,<br>
><br>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, John Wieczorek wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi Joel,<br>
>> Is this meant to call everyone's attention to the issues?<br>
><br>
> Yes, that is the purpose of this email. My understaning of the
process<br>
> for changing the standard is that proposals are entered into the
Issue<br>
> Tracker, followed by a 30 day period of public comment, followed by<br>
> the editor bringing the proposals to the executive for
ratification.<br>
> So, technically, tdwg-content does not need to be notified prior to<br>
> ratification. (Is that correct?) Regardless, as much as I want to
see<br>
> our proposals ratified, I don't want it to happen under the radar,
and<br>
> so thought it made sense to inform the list.<br>
><br>
>> To elicit further<br>
>> commentary? Or to make a specific proposal for action?<br>
>><br>
>> I suspect it is to put forward your positions on issue 205. If
that is<br>
>> correct, I propose bringing those positions here for
discussion.<br>
><br>
> I don't mind airing my positions on Issue 205, but would prefer
not to<br>
> lead off with that. My questions and suggestions regarding the<br>
> proposed dwc:Organism class are not as important as our proposal to<br>
> deprecate the dwctype namespace, and to remove the phrase "The<br>
> category of information pertaining to" from the definitions of the
dwc<br>
> classes.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Joel.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>> John<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, joel sachs <<a href="mailto:jsachs@csee.umbc.edu" target="_blank">jsachs@csee.umbc.edu</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> Hi Everyone,<br>
>><br>
>> I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to issues 204 -
226 in<br>
>> the Darwin Core issue tracker [1]. These issues describe<br>
>> proposed changes to the Darwin Core standard, and were
entered<br>
>> back in January in follow up to the Documenting Darwin
Core<br>
>> workshop held at TDWG 2013. These proposals reflect what
the<br>
>> organizers of that workshop believe to be the consensus
that was<br>
>> reached during the workshop’s four sessions in Florence.<br>
>><br>
>> The background for this is that, for some time, a number
of<br>
>> TDWGers have been working towards an applicability
statement to<br>
>> provide guidance on expressing Darwin Core data using
RDF. In<br>
>> the course of this work, it became apparent that the
semantics<br>
>> of Darwin Core itself needed a slight re-think, in order
to be<br>
>> usable on the semantic web. The goal was to be<br>
>> backward-compatible, i.e. to introduce and re-define
terms in a<br>
>> way that does not affect the meaning of existing Darwin
Core<br>
>> spreadsheet data, but which provides the semantic
grounding<br>
>> necessary for meaningful RDF. I think this goal has, for
the<br>
>> most part, been realized. If you have examples to the
contrary,<br>
>> please share them.<br>
>><br>
>> Steve Baskauf provides a good overview of the proposals
in Issue<br>
>> 204. Of all of them, only Issue 205 (the introduction of
a class<br>
>> to represent the taxonomically homogenous units that are<br>
>> described in Darwin Core occurrence data) was
contentious,<br>
>> primarily because we disagreed on a good name for the
class.<br>
>> (“We” refers to the ad-hoc group that worked on
translating the<br>
>> notes from the workshop into concrete proposals - John<br>
>> Wieczorek, James Macklin, Markus Döring, Rich Pyle, Tim<br>
>> Robertson, Bob Morris, Hilmar Lapp, Steve Baskauf, Gregor<br>
>> Hagedorn, and myself.) I’ve mentioned my own concerns as
a<br>
>> comment on that issue.<br>
>><br>
>> There is one proposal that had the support of the group,
but<br>
>> that is not yet entered into the Issue Tracker - the
deprecation<br>
>> of dwc:basisOfRecord. The motivation for this proposal
is that<br>
>> dwc:basisOfRecord is widely misunderstood and
inconsistently<br>
>> used, coupled with the fact that GBIF currently uses<br>
>> basisOfRecord with the semantics of the (to be proposed)<br>
>> dwc:hasEvidence term. However, we have held back on
proposing<br>
>> "hasEvidence", as there remain some unresolved issues
regarding<br>
>> how it would be used. This will likely be left as future
work,<br>
>> perhaps to be tackled at TDWG 2014.<br>
>><br>
>> Many thanks to all who participated in the workshop, and
to all<br>
>> who take the time to review its outcomes.<br>
>><br>
>> Joel.<br>
>><br>
>> 1. <a href="https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list" target="_blank">https://code.google.com/p/darwincore/issues/list</a>
["ID" -><br>
>> "Sort Down" to see in order]<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>></p>
</div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal">--<br>
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer<br>
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences<br>
<br>
postal mail address:<br>
PMB 351634<br>
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.<br>
<br>
delivery address:<br>
2125 Stevenson Center<br>
1161 21st Ave., S.<br>
Nashville, TN 37235<br>
<br>
office: 2128 Stevenson Center<br>
phone: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-4582" target="_blank">(615) 343-4582</a>, fax: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20322-4942" target="_blank">(615) 322-4942</a><br>
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.<br>
<a href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://vanderbilt.edu/trees" target="_blank">http://vanderbilt.edu/trees</a></p>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div><div> <br></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<pre>-- </pre>
<pre>Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer</pre>
<pre>Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>postal mail address:</pre>
<pre>PMB 351634</pre>
<pre>Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>delivery address:</pre>
<pre>2125 Stevenson Center</pre>
<pre>1161 21st Ave., S.</pre>
<pre>Nashville, TN 37235</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>office: 2128 Stevenson Center</pre>
<pre>phone: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-4582" value="+16153434582" target="_blank">(615) 343-4582</a>, fax: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20322-4942" value="+16153224942" target="_blank">(615) 322-4942</a></pre>
<pre>If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.</pre>
<pre><a href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a></pre>
<pre><a href="http://vanderbilt.edu/trees" target="_blank">http://vanderbilt.edu/trees</a></pre>
<pre> </pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
PMB 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20343-4582" value="+16153434582" target="_blank">(615) 343-4582</a>, fax: <a href="tel:%28615%29%20322-4942" value="+16153224942" target="_blank">(615) 322-4942</a>
If you fax, please phone or email so that I will know to look for it.
<a href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/" target="_blank">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
<a href="http://vanderbilt.edu/trees" target="_blank">http://vanderbilt.edu/trees</a>
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div>Hilmar Lapp -:- <a href="http://informatics.nescent.org/wiki" target="_blank">informatics.nescent.org/wiki</a> -:- <a href="http://lappland.io" target="_blank">lappland.io</a><br>
</div><br></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-content mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>