Anna,
One comment following from the GUID meeting is that I believe we need to get serious about being able to represent our data models in RDF. This means that the goal should indeed be for a "flat" (Darwin Core like) standard. If there are elements which hold nested complexity that we wish to represent, we should recognise that these are probably separate data objects which should be modeled as separable components (with their own "flat" standards). The top level object can then have a property whose value is the identifier for one of the lower level components. Even if we choose to compose rich documents with entire trees of object relationships, the underlying model should make these separations clear.
Thanks,
Donald
--------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Hobern (dhobern@gbif.org) Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 ---------------------------------------------------------------
_____
From: TDWG-Lit-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:TDWG-Lit-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Anna Weitzman Sent: 09 February 2006 16:22 To: TDWG-Lit@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [Tdwg-lit] Level 2 starting point
Dear All,
Attached is the starting point of the level 2 standard.
This is very much an intermediate between the other two standards, but as was discussed in the TDWG meetings, it is very much needed for a number of reasons. It will certainly be vital if we are to accommodate (and drive) the metadata choices that are made for the big literature digitization projects that are in the pipeline.
Once again, please review:
Requirements (do you have others? are these the right ones?)
Content elements.
Thanks
Anna & Chris