[tdwg-content] What RDF is (Was Re: Idea for Discussion, Differentiating between "type's" of identifiers)

["Markus Döring (GBIF)"]

Thanks for spotting this, Stan. 
It was a file permissions problem that Ive fixed now. Ironically all mails since September 11th have not been archived, but I manually copied the missing ones from my local mail client into the respective mailman archives and rebuild the whole thing. Both content and tag should be fine now. The tdwg announcement mailing list was never touched, so it has archived mails fine all the time. Here are the archive links in case anyone wants to make sure all mails are there:

http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/
http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg/

Sorry for the problem.
Markus



On Oct 7, 2010, at 10:00, Markus Döring wrote:

> Im looking into the archiving issue right now.
> As Stan pointed out both lists still exist as you can see here:
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo
> 
> Markus
> 
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 22:04, Blum, Stan wrote:
> 
>> TDWG-TAG was not to be decommissioned.  
>> 
>> If this discussion on TDWG-Content is not being archived (as Alrin noticed), then there was a glitch in the reconfiguration.  I think (hope) Markus can look into that tomorrow.
>> 
>> Addressing Markus’ earlier question, I don’t think this is boring to people interested in TDWG-Content.  It will just need to be explained and/or summarized to those not fully aware of the technical issues, particularly if we reach a consensus.  A regular restatement of the choices and issues helps to keep people focused.
>> 
>> -Stan 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/6/10 11:52 AM, "Peter DeVries" <pete.devries at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think the tdwg-tag list was shutdown as part of a effort to condense the tdwg lists to those that had traffic?
>>> 
>>> - Pete
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Markus Döring <m.doering at mac.com> wrote:
>>>> I am wondering if this discussion and similar rdf, lsid topics should continue on tdwg-tag rather than tdwg-content.
>>>> We might bore quite a few people...
>>>> 
>