%META:TOPICINFO{author="RicardoPereira" date="1147258644" format="1.1" version="1.4"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="TipDocuments"}%
---+ Initial Standards

This page hosts links to and feedback on the initial standards that are proposed in the TDWG Documentation Strategy (see TipDocuments). It is recommended that the strategy is read before commenting on the documents presented here.

First thing to note is that although the strategy document suggests 6 initial standards there are now only 5. It was quickly recognised that there was overlap between the IPR standard and the Copyright standard and it was also necessary to have disclaimer text defined somewhere. IPR and Disclaimer specifications have therefore been sunk into the copyright standard.

The second thing to note is that the strategy stipulates each standard should have 'Motivation' and 'Rationale' documents. This was seen as overkill by some of the reviewers and is certainly overkill for standards that are little more than a page long. The provision was therefore made for the motivation and rational text to be located either in independent documents, embedded within the cover page documents or within another document in the standard. There is still a requirement for the cover page document to have a pointer to the location of the motivation for and rational behind the standard.

The standards are being hosted in a mockup of the proposed repository. Note that this is a demo and so does not look like the final repository. It is just trying out some ideas. You can see it here:

http://biodiv.hyam.net/standards/

You will need a modern browser for it to work fully as it currently relies on XSL transformation in the browser (the final one will not).

You will see that each standard is composed of more than one file as specified. Metadata for the standard being contained in the cover.xml file. 

These documents are incomplete! There are parts that await the completion of the Process Subgroup meeting (including the whole of the Process Standard). They have also been written with little input from others at this stage and so need to 'mature' through some health criticism. Eventually they need to pass through the new standards process and whatever reviews are necessary as part of this before they are considered stable.

For convenience I link to each of the standard.xml files below and provide a page to add feedback. Please add any feedback to these pages or mail them to me directly (roger@tdwg.org). Thanks,

---++ Files
   * Defines the different kind of files that make up standards and how they are presented.
   * http://biodiv.hyam.net/standards/tdwg_admin_files/standard.xml
   * InitialStandardsFeedbackFiles

---++ Human Readable
   * Defines what human readable documents should look like
   * http://biodiv.hyam.net/standards/tdwg_admin_human_readable/standard.xml
   * InitialStandardsFeedbackHuman

---++ Copyright
   * Defines legal issues and how they should be dealt with.
   * http://biodiv.hyam.net/standards/tdwg_admin_copyright/standard.xml
   * InitialStandardsFeedbackCopyright

---++ Cover Page
   * Defines how the standards metadata should be presented.
   * http://biodiv.hyam.net/standards/tdwg_admin_cover_page/standard.xml
   * InitialStandardsFeedbackCoverPage

---++ Process
   * Defines TDWG Standards Process.
   * http://biodiv.hyam.net/standards/tdwg_admin_process/standard.xml
   * InitialStandardsFeedbackProcess

-- Main.RogerHyam - 25 Jan 2006

---+++General Discussion

---++++Gregor Hagedorn

I am slightly confused (worried?) about these things being called "standards". I was hoping more something like guidelines than a legalistic approach. Perhaps I would at least welcome a typical TDWG approach to say that any rule is at the discretion of the TDWG executive if the executive is convinced that in a specific situation something turns out to be not appropriate.

Do we need to develop such a complex set of "meta-standards"? Does w3c have these? I believe not, they seem to be more flexible in regard to kind of documents or file naming conventions, etc. Also I have never seen the kind of complex rdf cover-data-xml for any of their standards. That shall not say I believe the information is not valuable, but I question the wisdom of fixing a specific format for them. If the meta-data considered required or desirable are provided in some form, it is trivial to change the format. If standard developers rather submit them in human readable form, someone else may create the machine-readable formats preferred in a given year.

Does TDWG indeed have to develop its own standard development meta-standards in such detail itself? Most of what is discussed seems to be highly generic. 

Also the topic seem to me perhaps over-divided, or perhaps unintuitively divided. The current division may be useful during development, but ultimately I believe that the parts (except perhaps for cover page) should be combined into a single guideline document. Perhaps we do need documents as proposed to go back to them in case of doubt. However, to keep the learning curve low, perhaps than a separate guideline document in simple language (or a "primer" with examples) could emphasise the most important points.

-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 06 Feb 2006