[tdwg-tag] Re-organisation of TDWG Ontology: Danger silencewill == acquiescence!

[Blum, Stan]

In response Rod's suggestion about vocabulary reuse:  Absolutely, we should
make every effort to re-use existing vocabularies That promotes
interoperability whereas duplication does not.  This is a case of the golden
rule -- we should adopt others' vocabularies as we would have them adopt
ours.  
 
In response to Jim's question about which neighboring or encompassing domain
vacabularies should we re-use?  All that are compatible and demonstrably more
general and well established; e.g., Dublin Core, FOAF, etc.  
 
I support Roger's plans for methods, BUT...
 
I strongly suggest that we take this opportunity to dispense with (reject,
clean out) the naming convention that used prefixes on terms like "base" and
"core".  Just name the concepts to optimize common understanding and
specificity.  Trying to convey ontological structure with names seems
ill-advised.  The prefixes put people off and imposed an artificial
constraint (only two levels).  
 
-Stan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20090512/18d50b2d/attachment.html