I would add that once we do have a standard (my charter is under consideration), we should remove the antiquated references to avoid confusion and promote the actual standard.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2007/4/20, Renato De Giovanni <
<a href="mailto:renato@cria.org.br">renato@cria.org.br</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi Markus,<br><br>I never used the "old" DarwinCore concepts with TapirLink, except for
<br>testing the import of DiGIR PHP configuration. I also don't know if<br>somebody is using it.<br><br>Anyway, since someone already had the work of adding all DarwinCore<br>concepts in the CNS file, I would suggest to keep them there. At
<br>least while the new Darwin is still under the standardization<br>process. But we should definitely rename the label and maybe add some<br>comments there - the old DarwinCore is being shown with a greater<br>version than the new one...
<br><br>Regards,<br>--<br>Renato<br><br>On 19 Apr 2007 at 18:00, Markus Döring wrote:<br><br>> Ive been reconfiguring my tapirs here today and stumbled quite often<br>> across "old" mappings to darwin core
1.0 with NS <a href="http://digir.net/">http://digir.net/</a><br>> schema/conceptual/darwin/2003/1.0. Those concepts are also in the<br>> standard TDWG alias.txt file. What do you think, is there still any<br>> need for it with TAPIR or can we remove all reference to the old
<br>> darwin core and only work with the new one? Anybody of course is free<br>> to do create his own alias.txt and models, but should TDWG still<br>> provide support for this?<br>> --<br>> Markus<br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>tdwg-tapir mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>