- tdwg-content - lists.tdwg.org

Re: Name for the standard
by Richard Pyle 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

I've been quietly following this discussion, and have a general question to ask. In the note below and in previous notes, there seems to be an emphasis on SDD in the contect of "taxonomy"; but wouldn't it be more appropriate to place the emphasis more in the context of biological objects (e.g., specimens), rather than abstract concepts (taxa)? Even though the descriptive data may be applied directly to taxon concepts without an explicit reference to specific specimens/objects, ultimately the characters themselves that are being described are attached to a physical organism -- whether or not the specific physical organism is explicitly identified, or merely implied. Thus, when searching for another moniker to reference what we now refer to as "SDD", I suggest that options along the lines of "Bio..." are preferable to those along the lines of "Taxo...". Ultimately, this is about a Standard for Structured Data to Describe Biological Objects -- isn't it? I doubt that "SSDDBO" will win the hearts of many (or a shot at the bottle of cheap Portugues port). Personally, I'm partial to the previously-suggested "BODDS". Aloha, Rich Richard L. Pyle Natural Sciences Database Coordinator, 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: TDWG - Structure of Descriptive Data > [mailto:TDWG-SDD@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Kevin Thiele > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:56 AM > To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Subject: Re: Name for the standard > > > Do people in general think that we need to specify that we're > working in the > taxonomic domain - something that the name SDD doesn't - or can we be > extremely general. Perhaps it's the case that SDD will be able to be used > for descriptions outside the taxonomic domain, and we should embrace this > (whether anyone else embraces us is another matter entirely) - k > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gregor Hagedorn" <G.Hagedorn(a)BBA.DE> > To: <TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:53 PM > Subject: Re: Name for the standard > > > > Kevin wrote: > > > yes, I agree that SDD (Standard for Descriptive Data) would do - I was > > > just looking for something a little more exciting. Cheers - k > > > > .... I disagree :-) that "Standard for Descriptive Data"-standard > > would do, I therefore propose "Structured Descriptive Data"-standard. > > I absolutely agree with you about searching something more exciting. > > > > There is a general name grabbing of most-general and all-encompassing > > names (like BioML, which is really indecent...). Since we think about > > the generalization from Biological to other collected objects all the > > time and try to avoid too specifically biological jargon, we actually > > have some justification following suit and grab > > > > DescriptionML ? > > > > (for which Google returns 1 hit, which interestingly does not contain > > the term, I even checked the html source...) > > > > Gregor > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn(a)bba.de) > > Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety > > Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) > > Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 > > 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203 > > > > Often wrong but never in doubt!

1 0

Re: Name for the standard
by Gregor Hagedorn 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

Kevin wrote: > yes, I agree that SDD (Standard for Descriptive Data) would do - I was > just looking for something a little more exciting. Cheers - k .... I disagree :-) that "Standard for Descriptive Data"-standard would do, I therefore propose "Structured Descriptive Data"-standard. I absolutely agree with you about searching something more exciting. There is a general name grabbing of most-general and all-encompassing names (like BioML, which is really indecent...). Since we think about the generalization from Biological to other collected objects all the time and try to avoid too specifically biological jargon, we actually have some justification following suit and grab DescriptionML ? (for which Google returns 1 hit, which interestingly does not contain the term, I even checked the html source...) Gregor ---------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn(a)bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203 Often wrong but never in doubt!

1 0

Re: Name for the standard
by Jim Croft 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

>yes, I agree that SDD (Standard for Descriptive Data) would do - I was just >looking for something a little more exciting. Cheers - k and just what could possibly be more exciting than that? jim ~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~

1 0

Re: Name for the standard
by Kevin Thiele 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

Gregor, yes, I agree that SDD (Standard for Descriptive Data) would do - I was just looking for something a little more exciting. Cheers - k ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregor Hagedorn" <G.Hagedorn(a)BBA.DE> To: <TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:27 AM Subject: Re: Name for the standard > > >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'? > > > The workgroup name "Structure of descriptive data" was originally > explicitly chosen to describe an analysis process, rather than the > proposed standard. > > However, there is already some history of calling our thing > "Structured Descriptive Data (SDD)". Used e.g. by Kevin Thiele, Bryan > Heidorn, Donald Hobern... ! > > I think SDD may be a good option for a new standard name if no other > term is really convincing. However, I also like Chucks idea of > putting all TDWG/GBIF standards under a common roof very much. > Without the TDWG subgroup 12 month later no decision yet extension, > of course. > > Gregor > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn(a)bba.de) > Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety > Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) > Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 > 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203 > > Often wrong but never in doubt!

1 0

Re: DescriptoinML might be too broad Re: Name for the standard
by Robert A. Morris 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

No XML is descriptive. It's all syntactic. Hah, hah, just serious. Karen E. Medina wrote: >All xml is descriptive. > > >> DescriptionML ? >> >> -- Robert A. Morris, Professor of Computer Science University of Massachusetts at Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd; Boston, MA 02125 http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/efg phone: (+1)617-287-6466 fax: (+1)617-287-6433

1 0

Re: DescriptoinML might be too broad Re: Name for the standard
by marija.markovic＠ABBOTT.COM 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

I agree. Ask any linguist, and they'll tell you: "it looks just like HPSG (head-driven phrase structure grammar)". :) "Robert A. Morris" <ram(a)CS.UMB.EDU> Sent by: TDWG - Structure of Descriptive Data <TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU> 09/16/2003 08:58 AM Please respond to TDWG - Structure of Descriptive Data To: TDWG-SDD(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU cc: Subject: Re: DescriptoinML might be too broad Re: Name for the standard No XML is descriptive. It's all syntactic. Hah, hah, just serious. Karen E. Medina wrote: >All xml is descriptive. > > >> DescriptionML ? >> >> -- Robert A. Morris, Professor of Computer Science University of Massachusetts at Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd; Boston, MA 02125 http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/efg phone: (+1)617-287-6466 fax: (+1)617-287-6433

1 0

DescriptoinML might be too broad Re: Name for the standard
by Karen E. Medina 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

All xml is descriptive. > DescriptionML ?

1 0

Re: Name for the standard
by Gregor Hagedorn 15 Sep '03

15 Sep '03

> >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'? The workgroup name "Structure of descriptive data" was originally explicitly chosen to describe an analysis process, rather than the proposed standard. However, there is already some history of calling our thing "Structured Descriptive Data (SDD)". Used e.g. by Kevin Thiele, Bryan Heidorn, Donald Hobern... ! I think SDD may be a good option for a new standard name if no other term is really convincing. However, I also like Chucks idea of putting all TDWG/GBIF standards under a common roof very much. Without the TDWG subgroup 12 month later no decision yet extension, of course. Gregor ---------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn(a)bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203 Often wrong but never in doubt!

1 0

Re: XDELTA / RDF
by Gregor Hagedorn 15 Sep '03

15 Sep '03

Leigh Dodds wrote: > btw, where would look for an update/docs on the new > standard? I'm curious whether any consideration was > given to using RDF, which provides a good framework > for collating data about resources from multiple sources > and using multiple vocabularies. (For docs see http://160.45.63.11/Projects/TDWG-SDD/index.html. The minutes and xsd draft changes from Paris are not finished yet by me, however. Also Kevin is writing some introduction to the whole of SDD, that hopefully makes it easier to understand.) The application of RDF to SDD has been repeatedly discussed -- and is currently avoided. It probably would be a good thing, everybody agrees so, but most do not understand it well enough to really work with it or profit from the definitional documents. I failed to understand them. So we decided to try without RDF, rather than debating little understood things. Any review of our results from you would be great. If you can, come to Lisbon! Gregor ---------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn(a)bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203 Often wrong but never in doubt!

1 0

Re: BODDS Re: Name for the standard
by Jim Croft 11 Sep '03

11 Sep '03

>>>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/ ~

1 0