I have finished reviewing the user guide (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rX4m94rtZDR_8iIe3RvRnNYKDJcmSX3ii4S5hCznEA0/edit?usp=sharing)
and am ready to hand it off to Ani. Here are a few notes about what I did:
1. I added a header section using the standard format for TDWG documents. This isn’t required, but I think it’s helpful metadata to clarify the purpose of the document, the fact that it isn’t part of the standard,
when it was updated, etc. I add a “Contributors” section and put in the names of people who I think contributed to the document in some way. Apologies if I missed someone – please add your name if I missed you. I tried to put the people who created the most
content towards the beginning of the list, but since I wasn’t involved in putting the testing guide together, I may have it not quite right. I’ll leave it to Yani to decide about author order.
2. There were a number of wording changes that had been suggested by previous reviewers. Most of them made complete sense to me and I just accepted them to reduce the number of edits showing up in the record
of changes. I did leave the track changes feature turned on when I made most of my edits, so maybe when Ani proofreads, she can just accept those changes if she agrees to them (in the interest of making the change record less cluttered).
3. I added a paragraph about the solution that involved creating an additional extension. I think it’s OK, but take a look at what I said. I wasn’t sure to write it as if the new extension were already done,
so I kind of hedged on how I wrote it (I think I said that we planned to add it).
4. There are still a number of places where there are significant things missing or unresolved. For example there is the whole section about Peter and Rob’s controlled vocabulary. I think in most cases these
will have to just be deleted for now since it doesn’t seem likely that they will be completed by our target date for being done (next Wednesday). Since this document isn’t going to be part of the standards submission itself, we have the freedom to edit it
at will. If those additional parts do get finished, we can always put them back in. I think the best thing is for Yani to do a final read-through after Ani is done and make deletions for any stuff that’s incomplete. I think I put some kind of comment in every
place were a decision of this sort needs to be made.
I think that’s it. The document is looking great and I can’t believe what a large amount of effort has been put into it to make it so nice. Kudos to the contributors!
Steve
--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D. he/him/his
Data Science and Data Curation Specialist / Librarian III
Jean & Alexander Heard Libraries, Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37235, USA
Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Executive Committee/Technical Architecture Group Chair
https://baskauf.github.io/
From:
tdwg-humboldt <tdwg-humboldt-bounces@lists.tdwg.org> on behalf of ys628 <yanina.sica@yale.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 6:53 AM
To: Humboldt Core TG <tdwg-humboldt@lists.tdwg.org>, wmh6@cornell.edu <wmh6@cornell.edu>
Subject: [tdwg-humboldt] Meeting!
Hi all,
Thank you all for working on the documents; I saw many of you made comments and revised both the general HE documentation and the implementation report. Much appreciated!
Wesley, the documentation on isLeastSpecificTargetCategoryQuantityInclusive looks great! You really improved it, thank you so much!
Unfortunately, I do not think I will be able to join the meeting today (I am in Frankfurt with lots of in person meetings...)
I will kindly ask you to discuss and the following points.
As usual,
When to meet
Wednesdays 8 am EST (see your time here)
Where to meet
Zoom link: https://yale.zoom.us/j/97318391101
Thank you and sorry for missing the meeting
Best,
Yani
Yanina V. Sica, PhD
Lead Data Team
Yale University
pronouns: she/her/hers
If you are receiving this email outside of your working hours, I am not expecting you to read or respond.