57 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
57 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
|
head 1.2;
|
||
|
|
access;
|
||
|
|
symbols;
|
||
|
|
locks; strict;
|
||
|
|
comment @# @;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.2
|
||
|
|
date 2006.10.24.19.29.02; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next 1.1;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.1
|
||
|
|
date 2006.10.24.14.59.13; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
||
|
|
branches;
|
||
|
|
next ;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
desc
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.2
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1161718142" format="1.1" version="1.2"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="WebHome"}%
|
||
|
|
This topic is for discussion of the GISIN IASPS schema in the form denoted StLouis0943
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* GUIDs
|
||
|
|
* Should we agree that GUIDS are LSIDs? (Main.BobMorris : yes, probably required by TDWG). UMB can offer prototype LSID resolution and issuance services, or maybe Wouter wants to. This needs discussion.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* What elements should have GUIDS? Study the schema to see where they presently are and offer discussion here. Main.MichaelBrown: As few as possible.
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* The types !LocationT and !TaxonT need to be reworked to whatever standards TDWG adopts for locations.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Main.BobMorris: IMO this creates a serious schedule dependency with TDWG efforts, because tmy impression from the St. Louis meeting is there may be be no applicable TDWG standard until until the TDWG Core Ontology is complete. We should perhaps urge that time, location, and taxon names and then taxon concepts, be given the highest priority.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
More to come@
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1.1
|
||
|
|
log
|
||
|
|
@none
|
||
|
|
@
|
||
|
|
text
|
||
|
|
@d1 1
|
||
|
|
a1 1
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1161701953" format="1.1" reprev="1.1" version="1.1"}%
|
||
|
|
d3 2
|
||
|
|
d15 1
|
||
|
|
@
|