>Ultimately, this is about a Standard for Structured Data to Describe
>Biological Objects -- isn't it?

>I think that is what we are talking about...  you could leave out 'structured data' too and it >will still make sense...

Leaving out "structured data", how about Biological Object Description Markup Language - BiODML.

We could then have Biological Object Taxonomy Markup Language - BiOTML and Biological Object Collection Markup Languag - BiOCML (now either Darwin Core/DiGIR or ABCD?).

As an aside, won't all three of these languages need to fit together or follow some consistent conventions to ultimately to feed data into a complete GBIF data repository or global search service?  For instance, don't they all include taxon name data?     

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Croft [mailto:jrc@ANBG.GOV.AU]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:30 PM
To: TDWG-SDD@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: Name for the standard

>In the note below and in previous notes, there seems to be an emphasis
>on SDD in the contect of "taxonomy"; but wouldn't it be more
>appropriate to place the emphasis more in the context of biological
>objects (e.g., specimens), rather than abstract concepts (taxa)?

you are right, in part.  Although the SDD activity is undertaken by taxonomists, it extends beyond the core of taxonomy and nomenclature to delineation and description of the objects themselves (taxa mostly, to a lesser extent specimens).  In fact, existing programs in this area such as DELTA and LUCID handle nomenclature and taxonomy data extremely poorly...

>Even though the
>descriptive data may be applied directly to taxon concepts without an
>explicit reference to specific specimens/objects, ultimately the
>characters themselves that are being described are attached to a
>physical organism -- whether or not the specific physical organism is
>explicitly identified, or merely implied.

we we may be getting into the philosophical realm here...  Our Rainforest Key project actually scored recorded individual specimens for each taxon...  most DELTA and LUCID implementations amalgamate and abstract this to the level of taxon or taxon concept and score at this level...

of course, SDD should ideally handle both approaches...

>Ultimately, this is about a Standard for Structured Data to Describe
>Biological Objects -- isn't it?

I think that is what we are talking about...  you could leave out 'structured data' too and it will still make sense...

jim

~ Jim Croft ~ jrc@anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~