I still hope that the future model will be usable with xml-schema (w3c or whatever) as well as with OWL, I would vote for element names. The tagging approach means the the content model can not be elaborated in a way that allows validation (schema will not react to values, which the tags are).
I believe tagging is good if we want to make sure that the content model cannot be validated, so software will not make a contract about it. UBIF/SDD had purposely avoided element names and choose a tagging approach where we were looking for simple extensibility that is not expected to be validated (e.g. the different types of object label we need to support).
So, it just looks to me like the kind of high level categories you are discussing may call for category-specific content in the future, in this case element names are safer, whereever we go in the future.
I am not really into the discussion and would need some place to read up on what Infoitem, TaxonDataModel etc. is. (there is naught on the Wiki...)
Gregor
---------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn@bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Königin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203