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@BBA.DE To: TDWG-SDD@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@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!