Name for the standard

[Kevin Thiele]

Do people in general think that we need to specify that we're working in the
taxonomic domain - something that the name SDD doesn't - or can we be
extremely general. Perhaps it's the case that SDD will be able to be used
for descriptions outside the taxonomic domain, and we should embrace this
(whether anyone else embraces us is another matter entirely) - k

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregor Hagedorn" <G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE>
To: <TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Name for the standard


> Kevin wrote:
> > yes, I agree that SDD (Standard for Descriptive Data) would do - I was
> > just looking for something a little more exciting. Cheers - k
>
> .... I disagree :-) that "Standard for Descriptive Data"-standard
> would do, I therefore propose "Structured Descriptive Data"-standard.
> I absolutely agree with you about searching something more exciting.
>
> There is a general name grabbing of most-general and all-encompassing
> names (like BioML, which is really indecent...). Since we think about
> the generalization from Biological to other collected objects all the
> time and try to avoid too specifically biological jargon, we actually
> have some justification following suit and grab
>
>   DescriptionML ?
>
> (for which Google returns 1 hit, which interestingly does not contain
> the term, I even checked the html source...)
>
> Gregor
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
> Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
> Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
> Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19          Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
> 14195 Berlin, Germany           Fax: +49-30-8304-2203
>
> Often wrong but never in doubt!