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
Tel: +45-35321483
---------------------------------------------------------------
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