I would also like to emphasise that I would be unhappy to see the TDWG architecture restricted to what GBIF needs (or perhaps what GBIF knows it needs today). I would far rather see TDWG as the developer of a robust information architecture which can support a wide range of applications now and does not depend on any particular piece of infrastructure being provided indefinitely by GBIF or any other party.
Donald
--------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Hobern (dhobern@gbif.org) Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:Tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Bob Morris Sent: 06 March 2006 15:53 To: roger@tdwg.org Cc: Bob Morris; ""Döring, "@gerula.gbif.org; Guentsch, Anton; Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [Tdwg-tag] Why should data providers supply search and query services?
Roger wrote:
[...] We are building a global system so we have to be able to reconcile different encodings of the same object types.
Bob Morris replies:
I don't see anything in the TDWG Constitution that calls for a "global system". Any discussion of system building surely represents an interpretation of Article 1, in which the only explicit activity mentioned is that TDWG "develops, adopts and promotes standards and guidelines for the recording and exchange of data about organisms". Whether building systems at all is within the purview of TDWG, is probably beyond the mandate of the Secretariat to determine. If standards building is the focus instead of systems building, it does not follow logically that encodings have to be reconciled. I don't think standards bodies are obliged to make their standards reconciled with other people's standards. Doing so could only fall within Article 1.b, in which TDWG "promotes [the standards'] use through the most appropriate and effective means." That is so vague as to not consistute a requirement, and so addressing it with architecture probably needs more agreement in the organization about what it really means.
I share with Javier a concern that the architecture discussions may be conflating TDWG with GBIF. I am not necesarily opposed to this, and I even suspect Article 1 may in fact need revision. I just doubt that, if conflation with the goals of GBIF is inadvertantly happening, it is happening without consent of the membership.
Bob
Tdwg-tag mailing list Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org