>BODDS -Biological Ontological Descriptive Data Standard. It sounds kinda
>sexy when you say BODDS outloud. Or very juvenile. Or both.
well, if the shoe fits, I suppose we should wear it...
or we could just call it Biological Ontology... :)
nah... that one stinks...
jim
~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
>SDD stands for Structure of Descriptive Data - doesn't seem to me to do the
>job, and I just thought it would be sensible for the standard to have a
>different name from the group.
couldn't you just redefine the final product as 'Standard for Descriptive
Data', or if you want to be really creative and out there, 'Descriptive
Data Standard'?
>By the way, I'd better correct my last email. Make that a cheap bottle of
>Portugues port.
Well! That is one way to ensure that it stays as SDD!
jim
~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Croft [mailto:jrc@ANBG.GOV.AU]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:24 AM
> To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: BODDS Re: Name for the standard
>
>
> >>>There is a plant ontology consortium (POC) that is
> involved in trying
> >>>to rationalise terminology used by Arabidopsis, Zea and
> Oryza people,
> >>>and by extension (I hope) more gererally in fl. pl.
>
> Have they published anything? URL?
>
> jim
>
>
> ~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
>
====================================
Hi TDWG folk,
"Has the Plant Ontology Consortium published anything? URL" Yes - for
that info. & a whole lot more visit www.plantontology.org.
Regards,
- Leszek Vincent
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
P. Leszek D. Vincent Ph.D., FLS
Plant Science Unit, Dept. of Agronomy, 209 Curtis Hall,
University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211-7020, USA.
Ph: (573) 884-3716 (Agronomy); Fax:(573) 884-7850;
Ph/Fax (Home): (573) 441-1228;
Email: Leszek(a)missouri.edu
Yahoo! Messenger: leszekvincent
Plant Systematist on the Maize Mapping Project - NSF award 9872655 -
(http://www.maizemap.org/ and http://www.agron.missouri.edu/)
Associate Curator, Dunn-Palmer Herbarium (UMO)
Research Associate, Missouri Botanical Garden, USA
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
SDD stands for Structure of Descriptive Data - doesn't seem to me to do the
job, and I just thought it would be sensible for the standard to have a
different name from the group.
Of course, if we use SDD in the end, then the bottle of port is unclaimed.
By the way, I'd better correct my last email. Make that a cheap bottle of
Portugues port.
-k
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Croft" <jrc(a)ANBG.GOV.AU>
To: <TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Name for the standard
> >By the way, there's a bottle of fine Portuguese port for whoever comes up
> >with the final name. Of course, if no-one can come up with anything, the
> >SDD group at Lisbon will have to drink the port as consolation.
>
> just our of interest, what was wrong with SDD? Is it really something
that
> needs a catchy name to market to the outside world? Won't it just become
> part of the information infrastructure that everyone takes for granted?
>
> jim
>
>
> ~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
>Jim your skills are wasted. Get a real job!
Unfortunately these days it is the real job that is wasting my skills... :(
jim
~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
>By the way, there's a bottle of fine Portuguese port for whoever comes up
>with the final name. Of course, if no-one can come up with anything, the
>SDD group at Lisbon will have to drink the port as consolation.
just our of interest, what was wrong with SDD? Is it really something that
needs a catchy name to market to the outside world? Won't it just become
part of the information infrastructure that everyone takes for granted?
jim
~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
>>There is a plant ontology consortium (POC) that is involved in
>>trying to rationalise terminology used by Arabidopsis, Zea and
>>Oryza people, and by extension (I hope) more gererally in fl. pl.
Peter S.
>>BODDS -Biological Ontological Descriptive Data Standard. It sounds kinda
>>sexy when you say BODDS outloud. Or very juvenile. Or both.
>
>well, if the shoe fits, I suppose we should wear it...
>
>or we could just call it Biological Ontology... :)
>
>nah... that one stinks...
>
>jim
>
>
>~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
RE: Name for the standardso far, we have:
BioDDS - (Chuck Miller) (spinning off to BDDS -> BDS -> BD -> D ->DELTA ->Jim Croft)
BioDescML - (Chuck Miller)
BioML - (Jim Croft) (taken - see xml.coverpages.org/bioml.html)
BioTaxML - (Chuck Miller)
CAML (Jim Croft) (taken - see http://www.vision.fhg.de/~veenhuis/CAML/)
ExSDD - (Stan Blum)
DescML - (Jim Croft)
PanML (Nick Lander, who will undoubtedly pass the port to Richard Pankhurst)
TDML - (Guillaume Rousse)
TaxDescML - (Guillaume Rousse)
xDELTA - (don't know who to give the port to for this one - maybe Mike Dallwitz)
XSDD - (Bob Morris and Stan Blum)
Keep them coming. There hasn't been so much traffic on the list for years!
-k
RE: Name for the standardAn excellent suggestion - perhaps we need to set up a TDWG working group to consider this and report in 12 months time.
By the way, there's a bottle of fine Portuguese port for whoever comes up with the final name. Of course, if no-one can come up with anything, the SDD group at Lisbon will have to drink the port as consolation.
-k
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck.Miller(a)MOBOT.ORG
To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: Name for the standard
How many XML schemas are currently in work within TDWG(Collections, SDD, Economic Botany, Geography, Spatial Data) and GBIF(DADI, ECAT, and DIGIT)? Is there a way to unify them under some more universal schemaML naming approach? This seems like a unique moment in time to start a precedent.
The GBIF Biodiversity Data Architecture document is replete with models of interfaces and web services that will all require new XML schemas to be created--each needing a name. GBIF also intends to add schemas for taxa, literature, gazeteers, indexes, providers, etc.
Is there a way to be more universal in naming these schemas?
The simple names like BioML, TaxML, etc. have already been used and are probably too general anyway. (OmniML?)
One approach could be to concatentate dipthongs or something to create a schema of ML names. For example, BioDescML, BioTaxML, BioLitML. Or BioDML, BioTML, BioLML. Or GBIFDescML. Or TDWGDescML.
Chuck Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Croft [mailto:jrc@ANBG.GOV.AU]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 8:53 PM
To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: Name for the standard
is DescML taken?
jim
>jrc> So what is it to be? BioML?
>
>preoccupied, although there in no strict registration mechanism except
>its flavour in namespace. http://xml.coverpages.org/bioml.html
~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
Jim your skills are wasted. Get a real job!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Croft" <jrc(a)ANBG.GOV.AU>
To: <TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: Name for the standard
> >How about BIODDS - BIOlogical Descriptive Data Standard?
>
> or BDDS...
>
> but the data is probably a given in this day and age so we could get away
> with BDS...
>
> ....
>
> but most people would probably refer to it as the 'BD standard' so we
could
> shorten it further to BD...
>
> and if we do the job properly and at the right level there is no reason
why
> it needs to be restricted to biology, so it could be the D standard... or
D
>
> or Descriptive Ontology Integrating Taxonomy: DO IT
>
> Got it! ... Descriptive Environment for Large Taxonomic Arrays...
>
> now, where did I put those pills...
>
> jim
>
>
> ~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
