I'd be interested Bob :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert A. (Bob) Morris" <ram(a)CS.UMB.EDU>
To: <TDWG-SDD(a)USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: SDD XML discussion in Sydney
> I found last year that I was torn between the accessions working group
> and the sdd working group, so
> I wonder if anyone is interested in about a half-day pre-meeting
> discussion of XML schemas/DTD for descriptive data on the afternoon of
> November 8, …
[View More]to continue in the regular meeting. Based on our own
> experience in our Electronic Field Guide project, my current belif is
> that descriptive data will generally need much smaller schemas than
> accession data, largely because
>
> (a). the latter is likely to have tags for a lot of stuff descriptive
> pages need anyway and (b). mostly what is needed is some stuff to be
> able to provide data typing information to characters. XSchema is
> quite good at this.
>
> Because of (a) I will lobby in the accessions group for a clean
> separation of markup that's about biological and spatio/temporal
> concepts from markup that's about records. It may be that events,
> e.g. collection events is another area of overlap. Indeed, one focus
> of a premeeting might be to take the output of the accessions work and
> see what overlap there is in desired markup.
>
> Bob Morris
[View Less]
I'm interested Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert A. (Bob) Morris" <ram(a)CS.UMB.EDU>
> To: <TDWG-SDD(a)USOBI.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:57 AM
> Subject: SDD XML discussion in Sydney
>
>
> > I found last year that I was torn between the accessions working group
> > and the sdd working group, so
> > I wonder if anyone is interested in about a half-day pre-meeting
> > discussion of XML schemas/DTD for …
[View More]descriptive data on the afternoon of
> > November 8, to continue in the regular meeting. Based on our own
> > experience in our Electronic Field Guide project, my current belif is
> > that descriptive data will generally need much smaller schemas than
> > accession data, largely because
> >
> > (a). the latter is likely to have tags for a lot of stuff descriptive
> > pages need anyway and (b). mostly what is needed is some stuff to be
> > able to provide data typing information to characters. XSchema is
> > quite good at this.
> >
> > Because of (a) I will lobby in the accessions group for a clean
> > separation of markup that's about biological and spatio/temporal
> > concepts from markup that's about records. It may be that events,
> > e.g. collection events is another area of overlap. Indeed, one focus
> > of a premeeting might be to take the output of the accessions work and
> > see what overlap there is in desired markup.
> >
> > Bob Morris
>
[View Less]
I found last year that I was torn between the accessions working group
and the sdd working group, so
I wonder if anyone is interested in about a half-day pre-meeting
discussion of XML schemas/DTD for descriptive data on the afternoon of
November 8, to continue in the regular meeting. Based on our own
experience in our Electronic Field Guide project, my current belif is
that descriptive data will generally need much smaller schemas than
accession data, largely because
(a). the latter is likely …
[View More]to have tags for a lot of stuff descriptive
pages need anyway and (b). mostly what is needed is some stuff to be
able to provide data typing information to characters. XSchema is
quite good at this.
Because of (a) I will lobby in the accessions group for a clean
separation of markup that's about biological and spatio/temporal
concepts from markup that's about records. It may be that events,
e.g. collection events is another area of overlap. Indeed, one focus
of a premeeting might be to take the output of the accessions work and
see what overlap there is in desired markup.
Bob Morris
[View Less]
