September 2003 - tdwg-content

Re: Name for the Standard
by Kevin Thiele 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Whaddya mean, I like it! ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric.Zurcher(a)CSIRO.AU To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 10:49 AM Subject: Re: Name for the Standard Just be careful that it doesn't get corrupted to: Generalised Object Descriptive DAta Markup Notation. Eric Zurcher CSIRO Livestock Industries Canberra, Australia Eric.Zurcher(a)csiro.au -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Thiele [mailto:kevin.thiele@BIGPOND.COM] Sent: Friday, 19 September 2003 8:47 PM To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject: Re: Name for the Standard Got it! - we think that SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised Object Description Markup Language - an acronym to die for, surely. -k

1 0

Re: Name for the Standard
by Eric.Zurcher＠CSIRO.AU 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Just be careful that it doesn't get corrupted to: Generalised Object Descriptive DAta Markup Notation. Eric Zurcher CSIRO Livestock Industries Canberra, Australia Eric.Zurcher(a)csiro.au -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Thiele [mailto:kevin.thiele@BIGPOND.COM] Sent: Friday, 19 September 2003 8:47 PM To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject: Re: Name for the Standard Got it! - we think that SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised Object Description Markup Language - an acronym to die for, surely. -k

1 0

Re: Name for the Standard
by Kevin Thiele 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Got it! - we think that SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised Object Description Markup Language - an acronym to die for, surely. -k

1 0

GOD ML - Thiele's creation Re: Name for the Standard
by Karen E. Medina 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

GOD ML (by Kevin Thiele) What a creation. -karen medina On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Kevin Thiele wrote: > Got it! - we think that SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised Object > Description Markup Language - an acronym to die for, surely. > > -k

1 0

Re: Name for the Standard
by Bryan Heidorn 19 Sep '03

19 Sep '03

Millions have already died for the books on this acronym, but I think you are onto something. If you can understand an organism well enough to describe it well, you are closer to your Generalized Object Description. -- Bryan At 08:46 PM 9/19/03 +1000, you wrote: >Got it! - we think that SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised >Object >Description Markup Language - an acronym to die for, surely. > >-k -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- P. Bryan Heidorn Graduate School of Library and Information Science pheidorn(a)uiuc.edu University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign MC-493 (V)217/ 244-7792 Rm. 221, 501 East Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820-6212 (F)217/ 244-3302 http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~heidorn Calendar: http://calendar.yahoo.com/pbheidorn Visit the Biobrowser Web site at http://www.biobrowser.org

1 0

Re: update on names
by Jim Croft 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

>Hey - maybe we don't need a name for the standard - just a number! hexadecimal, octal or binary? jim ~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~

1 0

Re: update on names
by Kevin Thiele 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

Re: update on namesHey - maybe we don't need a name for the standard - just a number! ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Stevens To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:47 AM Subject: Re: update on names Really - I think proponents of the PhyloCoide shoudl come to this list for inspiration :) P. update to 18-09-03: BioDDS (Chuck Miller) (spinning off to BDDS -> BDS -> BD -> D ->DELTA ->Jim Croft) BioDescML (Chuck Miller) BiODML (Chuck Miller) BioML (Jim Croft) (taken - see xml.coverpages.org/bioml.html) BioTaxML (Chuck Miller) BiOTML (Chuck Miller) BODDS (Karen Medina) CAML (Jim Croft) (taken - see http://www.vision.fhg.de/~veenhuis/CAML/) ExSDD (Stan Blum) DescML (Jim Croft) DescriptionML (Karen Medina) PanML (Nick Lander, who will undoubtedly pass the port to Richard Pankhurst) SDD (Structured Descriptive Data - port unclaimed?) SDBO (Rich Pyle) SSDDBO (Rich Pyle) TDML (Guillaume Rousse) TaxDescML (Guillaume Rousse) xDELTA (don't know who to give the port to for this one - maybe Mike Dallwitz) XBio (Julian Humphries) XSDD (Bob Morris and Stan Blum) Xtax (Julian Humphries)

1 0

Re: Name for the standard
by Kevin Thiele 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

RE: Name for the standard----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck.Miller(a)MOBOT.ORG To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:01 AM Subject: Re: Name for the standard As an aside, won't all three of these languages need to fit together or follow some consistent conventions to ultimately to feed data into a complete GBIF data repository or global search service? For instance, don't they all include taxon name data? Yes, at the moment we're not worrying too much about that, but obviously when we include a taxon name, place name, authority, reference etc these will all need to be harmonised with existing standards.

1 0

update on names
by Kevin Thiele 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

update to 18-09-03: BioDDS (Chuck Miller) (spinning off to BDDS -> BDS -> BD -> D ->DELTA ->Jim Croft) BioDescML (Chuck Miller) BiODML (Chuck Miller) BioML (Jim Croft) (taken - see xml.coverpages.org/bioml.html) BioTaxML (Chuck Miller) BiOTML (Chuck Miller) BODDS (Karen Medina) CAML (Jim Croft) (taken - see http://www.vision.fhg.de/~veenhuis/CAML/) ExSDD (Stan Blum) DescML (Jim Croft) DescriptionML (Karen Medina) PanML (Nick Lander, who will undoubtedly pass the port to Richard Pankhurst) SDD (Structured Descriptive Data - port unclaimed?) SDBO (Rich Pyle) SSDDBO (Rich Pyle) TDML (Guillaume Rousse) TaxDescML (Guillaume Rousse) xDELTA (don't know who to give the port to for this one - maybe Mike Dallwitz) XBio (Julian Humphries) XSDD (Bob Morris and Stan Blum) Xtax (Julian Humphries)

1 0

Re: Name for the standard
by Kevin Thiele 18 Sep '03

18 Sep '03

See my previous email - what's so special about higher-level taxonomic concepts cf specimens? The character space created to describe a taxon can also be used perfectly well to describe a specimen of that taxon (and vice versa) in most cases. In fact, it could not be any other way, when you think about it. -k ----- Original Message ----- From: "P. Bryan Heidorn" <heidorn(a)ALEXIA.LIS.UIUC.EDU> To: <TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:05 PM Subject: Re: Name for the standard > As an information scientists and not a "taxonomists" in the systematics use of > the world, but certainly a taxonomists in the Library Science use of the word, > e.g. Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) I think the work practice now is to > describe higher level taxonomic concepts independent of the raw data the > specimen. It is the description of a class of objects not the object > themselves. Even at the species level the taxonomists is not claiming to have > seen all of the individuals, just enough to make generalizations. So I think > this generalization needs to be addressed by SDD. It would be icing on the > cake if SDD could deal with the relationship to instance data as well. > > Bryan > >===== Original Message From TDWG - Structure of Descriptive Data > <TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> ===== > >> I think in theory the SDD spec could be used to describe > >> anything that can be > >> broken into characteristics and states. That can certainly go > >> beyond biology > >> as DELTA did in some cases. I believe that, "Structure of > >> Descriptive Data" > >> handles that idea. It can be a description of anything. The > >> description may > >> itself be grounded in instance data from the world (specimens) > >> that have been > >> abstracted or summarized. > > > >If the intent is to maintain it so generalized that it can be used in any > >context, including abiotic ones (in the same sense that DiGIR is > >specifically intended to be "Generic", not necessarily limited to biological > >datasets), then I agree -- stick with "SDD". > > > >> The taxonomy component is needed to specify what it is that is being > >> described. In the realm of biology it would seem to be worth some > >> effort to be domain specific in this part to make sure we can capture this > >> reference to a "taxonomic concept." > > > >I guess that lies at the heart of my original question. I've been under the > >impression that descriptive data about, for example, certain characteristics > >of a leaf, are related to the tree from which the leaf fell, moreso than the > >abstract taxonomic concept in which some taxonomist might include that tree > >within. In that sense, I see "taxonomy" as a field that may very well be a > >(the?) primary consumer of such descriptive data, but not necessarily what > >the descriptive data is specifically endeavoring to describe. > > > >I don't want to belabor this point, but I just would like to understand > >whether taxonomic concepts are considered by this group as the direct > >objects that are being described; or whether the descriptive data really > >apply to individual (or sets of individual) organisms, which may or may not > >be viewed within the context of a taxonomic concept. > > > >Again, my apologies if this is drifting too far from the focus of this > >discussion. > > > >Aloha, > >Rich > > > >Richard L. Pyle > >Ichthyology, Bishop Museum > >1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817 > >Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 > >email: deepreef(a)bishopmuseum.org > >http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > P. Bryan Heidorn Graduate School of Library and Information Science > pheidorn(a)uiuc.edu University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > (V)217/ 244-7792 501 East Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820-6212 > (F)217/ 244-3302 http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~heidorn > http://calendar.yahoo.com/pbheidorn

1 0