Hi all,

In this and the next couple of messages, we're going to try to summarize what has been discussed so far and refocus the discussion somewhat.

 

There has been some level of discussion, especially from Donald, Gregor, and Roger about the form the standards should take.  For now, we would like to  leave that aside from this particular discussion as, I think we all agree, that seems to be a more generalized discussion that is going to affect all ongoing TDWG standards.

 

 We think it would be more productive if the group puts its focus on contents of the standards rather than form at the current time.

 

It also appears that there is some confusion between what is included in levels 1 & 2.  Level 1, as originally defined, is not intended to include metadata about the publication.  To us that seems to include original language and translation/transliteration metadata which,  while it is certainly relevant, might better be placed in level 2 with the rafts of other metadata.  We can see an argument for inclusion of certain metadata in Level 1, although this goes against taxonomic custom and opens the door to adding lots of metadata to Level 1, which seems inappropriate.

 

That does bring up the issue of relationship between the two standards.  Should one of the uses of Level 2 be the generation of Level 1 citation(s) in various languages which then tie back to metadata in Level 2 about the language used as well as all of the other level 2 metadata?

 

Cheers,

Anna & Chris