RE: Name for the standardAn excellent suggestion - perhaps we need to set up a TDWG working group to consider this and report in 12 months time.

By the way, there's a bottle of fine Portuguese port for whoever comes up with the final name. Of course, if no-one can come up with anything, the SDD group at Lisbon will have to drink the port as consolation.

-k ----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck.Miller@MOBOT.ORG To: TDWG-SDD@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:43 AM Subject: Re: Name for the standard

How many XML schemas are currently in work within TDWG(Collections, SDD, Economic Botany, Geography, Spatial Data) and GBIF(DADI, ECAT, and DIGIT)? Is there a way to unify them under some more universal schemaML naming approach? This seems like a unique moment in time to start a precedent.

The GBIF Biodiversity Data Architecture document is replete with models of interfaces and web services that will all require new XML schemas to be created--each needing a name. GBIF also intends to add schemas for taxa, literature, gazeteers, indexes, providers, etc.

Is there a way to be more universal in naming these schemas?

The simple names like BioML, TaxML, etc. have already been used and are probably too general anyway. (OmniML?)

One approach could be to concatentate dipthongs or something to create a schema of ML names. For example, BioDescML, BioTaxML, BioLitML. Or BioDML, BioTML, BioLML. Or GBIFDescML. Or TDWGDescML.

Chuck Miller

-----Original Message----- From: Jim Croft [mailto:jrc@ANBG.GOV.AU] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 8:53 PM To: TDWG-SDD@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject: Re: Name for the standard

is DescML taken?

jim

jrc> So what is it to be? BioML?

preoccupied, although there in no strict registration mechanism except its flavour in namespace. http://xml.coverpages.org/bioml.html

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