I have just finished reading all the traffic on TDWG-SSD after 2 weeks away, and I noticed something interesting. There is an important difference of perspective here that has not so far been made explicit:
To some people, character definitions are part of the *structure* of a data format, while to others these definitions are *content*. E.g., character definitions as structure (attribution lost):
[...] So we need to support the word "ovate" as a leaf shape descriptor <<leaf_shape>ovate<</leaf_shape> or we will not be able to support legacy data.
...and as content (Peter Stevens):
Of course we have to be able to <underline>handle</underline> such data, it will simply be a case of caveat emptor.
Count me among those who regard character (and taxon) definitions as content.
Una Smith una.smith@yale.edu
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Yale University New Haven, CT 06520-8106