<html><body class="ApplePlainTextBody" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">John,<br>this might not be the right place for it, but if there is any change done to DwC, I would love to see the InfraspecificRank concept becoming a general Rank concept, also usable for suprageneric ranks.<br><br>Re 6 (restrictions on content): should the standard deal with controlled vocabularies too? For example for rank, basis-of-record or nomenclatural-code? I think it should give at least best practices, even if its just human readable like the current tdwg wiki pages do.<br><br>And learning from the lessons of the new taxonomy rdf vocabulary we really should include a short article in wikipedia about darwin core - and probably other tdwg formats like tcs too.<br><br>Markus<br><br><br>On 4 Jun, 2008, at 10:33, Roger Hyam (TDWG) wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">My only wish is that each 'concept' within DwC consists of a normative<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">description bound to a URI. We can then use these definitions across<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">technologies.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I would even suggest that the standard takes the form of a human<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">readable table of URIs and definitions and any talk of XML Schema,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">RDF, CSV etc is left either to later sections of the standard or even<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">totally separate standards.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">My belief is that the pain we suffer now is because the 'things' were<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not defined separately from the technology so it is not possible to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">conceptually map between the transfer formats.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Just my thoughts,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Roger<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On 29 May 2008, at 21:43, Renato De Giovanni wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">John et al.,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I think it's a good idea to use a survey to test for consensus, but it<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">should be as simple as possible. I would suggest perhaps two<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">questions:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">--------------<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1- Would you be satisfied if the current DarwinCore and its two<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">extensions<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(curatorial and geospatial) become an official standard? (even if you<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">don't fully agree with everything).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">yes/no<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2- If not, what do you think should still be improved/fixed?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">[text]<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">---------------<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Regarding your questions, maybe it would be interesting to move the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">discussion to the Wiki so that more people can participate and all<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">answers<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can be visualized together.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I agree with Dave that it's important to define the nature of DwC.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Personally, I see it as an XML vocabulary, not a real data model as<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">TDWG ontology.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Now my answers:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1) Yes, I agree that species occurrence would be the right scope for<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">core. However, I agree with Hannu that some concepts in the core can<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">easily cause confusion when interpreted by field observers. A few<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">adjustments in concept names and perhaps a new observation extension<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">could<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">be worthwhile.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">As a side note, if we decide to make any changes in the existing<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">schemas<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it's important to change the namespace because they are already<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">being used<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">by providers. It's possible to map concepts from two schemas if they<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">have<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">different namespaces (see http://rs.tdwg.org/tapir/cs/mappings/)<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">allowing<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">providers to easily upgrade their configuration when necessary.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2) Fully agree with Dave.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">3) Fully agree with Dave and Hannu.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">4) I tend to agree with John, unless we expect that a few<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">observation/specimen data providers will be able to offer additional<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">GUIDs<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(such as taxon concept GUIDs) in the next years. I doubt this will<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">happen<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">soon, but I may be wrong.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">5) I see the current application schema more as an example. There<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">as many application schemas as necessary from TAPIR's perspective.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">one works well for flat data structures. ABCD or something along the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">lines<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of Markus' new schema would be better options when there can be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">repeatable<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">elements.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">6) Fully agree with John's answer. I think it's important to allow<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">data<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">cleaning through valid XML instances.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Best Regards,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">--<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Renato<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I got sidetracked on this days ago, but feel in the light of recent<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">star<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">schema discussions on the original caching thread that the time is<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">again<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">right to submit this new discussion.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Tradition has DwC discussions on this Tapir mailing list. I'm<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">starting<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">new thread based on Markus' recent posting (below) about an<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Identification<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">extension to DwC. I'm motivated to pull together the time and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">energy to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">finally push the pending DwC through the standards process, with a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">goal of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">having that whole process finished by the TDWG Meeting this year.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I've been thinking about how to conduct the Request for Comment<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">required<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">move the standard forward. I propose to put together a survey with<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Survey<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Monkey or something akin to actually test for reasonble concensus.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Any<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">comments or suggestions about this idea are welcome.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">However, I see benefits to having further discussion about some key<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">issues<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">before doing that, as I believe we now have enough accumulated<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">experience<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">make some good decisions that will affect the design and guidelines<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">further development of the Darwin core and extensions.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In the past, most Darwin Core discussions have revolved about<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">whether to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">include a particular concept, and where. I think it will be much more<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">useful<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to concentrate on a few key issues at a higher level, resolve them<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">at that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">level, then make any necessary changes to the schemas based on the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">consensus<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">guiding principles. It should be easy and fast to accomplish this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">if the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">principles are clear and simple. It should be possible to complete<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">work<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">soon if we can easily achieve a concensus. Here are some seed<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">questions<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">recommendations to facilitate the resolution if this next step in the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">process.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">1) Is species occurrence in nature and in collections the right<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">scope for<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the Core?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2) Should the general philosophy of the Core be inclusive or<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">minimalist?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">What are the characteristics of a concept that allow it to be in<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the Core?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">What are the characteristics of a concept that allow it to be added<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to an<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">existing extension?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">3) What are the defining characteristics of a group of related<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">concepts<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">justify the creation of a new extension? Should extensions be based<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">on<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">abstract conceptual groupings/objects (events,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">identifications/determinations, places)? Or on special interests<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">(paleo,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">curation, interaction)? Or on the stability of the concepts (core<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">contains<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the proven stable concepts, extensions are more volatile)?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">4) Should there be elements in the Core and extensions to hold GUIDs<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">linking<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">them to instances of related classes of objects, such as an<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">occurrence to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">TaxonConceptGUID, or an occurrence to a CoreGatheringGUID? Should<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">every<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">extension have a non-mandatory GUID allowing for the external<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">resolution<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the object?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">5) What should the Darwin Tapir application schema look like?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">6) Is it the right approach to have restrictions on content at the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">concept<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">definition level? Where should the line be drawn? Arguments have been<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">raised<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in the past about the DwC and extensions' content with respect to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">being restrictive versus open to incorrect content. For example,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">DayOfYear<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in the current DwC 1.4 (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/tdwg_dw_core.xsd) is<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">typed<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">as<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">a dwc:dayOfYearDataType, which is defined in<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/tdwg_basetypes.xsd as:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><xs:simpleType name="dayOfYearDataType"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><xs:restriction base="xs:integer"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><xs:minInclusive value="1" /><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><xs:maxInclusive value="366" /><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"></xs:restriction><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"></xs:simpleType><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Anything short of a flamethrower in response is welcome.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">tdwg-tapir mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">tdwg-tapir mailing list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br></body></html>