At 11:29 AM 7/25/00 +1000, Eric Zurcher wrote:
- Difficulty in merging or comparing datasets - it is rather difficult to
combine datasets based on differing character lists, even when those character lists are fairly similar. There is no mechanism for "mapping" character states from one dataset onto those of another. (Disparate character lists are another matter entirely. My personal view is that the holy grail of a "universal" character list for, say, all of botany will tend to remain tantilizingly just out of reach, and the efforts of this group should not be distracted in that direction.)
I agree with Eric on two points raised above:
- discrete characters / states need to be re-evaluated and perhaps re-coded when they are combined across studies; automating that task isn't a good idea (comments by Peter and Stinger about morphometrics notwithstanding -- though morphometric characters can also be very context specific).
- this group should not be distracted by developing lists of authorized shape descriptors.
But Eric's comment reminds me that there is a STRONG reason for moving a data set between the various applications that deal with descriptive data: a single person might want to use DELTA, LucID, PAUP and McClade in the same study. It would be "nice" to have the capability to create and maintain a single data set that could store and "serve" data to each application. If we could create the specification for that data set, I would judge this effort a success.
-Stan