head 1.7; access; symbols; locks; strict; comment @# @; 1.7 date 2009.11.25.03.14.35; author GarryJolleyRogers; state Exp; branches; next 1.6; 1.6 date 2009.11.20.02.45.27; author LeeBelbin; state Exp; branches; next 1.5; 1.5 date 2007.03.06.17.30.00; author TWikiGuest; state Exp; branches; next 1.4; 1.4 date 2006.05.08.10.07.22; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp; branches; next 1.3; 1.3 date 2004.06.10.06.41.03; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp; branches; next 1.2; 1.2 date 2004.03.16.10.09.50; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp; branches; next 1.1; 1.1 date 2003.11.21.09.16.00; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp; branches; next ; desc @none @ 1.7 log @none @ text @%META:TOPICINFO{author="GarryJolleyRogers" date="1259118875" format="1.1" version="1.7"}% ---+!! %TOPIC% When the SDD group was initiated it was defined as a task group to explore the structure of descriptive data and come up with a proposal for a new standard to cast data currently held in DELTA and related formats into an xml standard. The TDWG subgroup name does not necessarily has to be the name of the standard. We had repeated very active discussions that produced a colorful range of candidates, However, no decision was taken yet, partly because in Lisbon I am responsible for putting it as a last point on the agenda, thinking it would revitalize us at the end. As the wiser of us may have expected, the opposite happened, we were all to exhausted after 6 full days of discussions and let the topic drop. Since this document is already very long, I have created a second topic NameForStandardWikiDiscussions. Please read this for reference, and put your comments into the new topic.

Summary of discussion 2002:

Agreeing on a preliminary name at the next meeting is not critical, but it would simplify the discussion and eliminate the ambiguous "the new SDD standard" phrase. This document should be considered an initial brainstorm. Please send your additions, comments, and criticism.

Terms considered to cover the scope of the standard:

Modifiers considered to cover the scope of the standard:

Terms considered to be misleading:

"Brainstorm" of possible names for the new standard:

----

New Discussion in 2003 on email list

Summary list updated by Kevin:

BioDDS (Chuck Miller) (spinning off to BDDS -> BDS -> BD -> D ->DELTA ->Jim Croft)
BioDescML (Chuck Miller)
BiODML (Chuck Miller)
BioML (Jim Croft) (taken - see xml.coverpages.org/bioml.html)
BioTaxML (Chuck Miller)
BiOTML (Chuck Miller)
BODDS (Karen Medina)
CAML (Jim Croft) (taken - see http://www.vision.fhg.de/~veenhuis/CAML/)
ExBDI.SDD (Stan Blum)
DescML (Jim Croft)
DescriptionML (Gregor Hagedorn)
PanML (Nick Lander, who will undoubtedly pass the port to Richard Pankhurst)
SDD (Structured Descriptive Data - port unclaimed?)
SDBO (Rich Pyle)
SSDDBO (Rich Pyle)
TDML (Guillaume Rousse)
TaxDescML (Guillaume Rousse)
xDELTA (don't know who to give the port to for this one - maybe Mike Dallwitz)
XBio (Julian Humphries)
XBDI.SDD (Bob Morris and Stan Blum)
Xtax (Julian Humphries)

Kevin: Got it! - we think that SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised Object Description Markup Language - an acronym to die for, surely. --- Eric Zurcher: Just be careful that it doesn't get corrupted to: Generalised Object Descriptive DAta Markup Notation. ---- Version 1 and 2 of this document were originally maintained at http://www.diversitycampus.net/Projects/TDWG-SDD/docs/SDD_I_StdNameChoices.html. Again, since this document is already very long, please add your comments not here but in the new topic NameForStandardWikiDiscussions. ---- Gregor Hagedorn; Vers. 2.1; 21. Nov. 2003 @ 1.6 log @none @ text @d1 1 a1 1 %META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1258685127" format="1.1" reprev="1.6" version="1.6"}% d4 1 a4 1 When the BDI.SDD group was initiated it was defined as a task group to explore the structure of descriptive data and come up with a proposal for a new standard to cast data currently held in DELTA and related formats into an xml standard. The TDWG subgroup name does not necessarily has to be the name of the standard. d12 1 a12 1 Agreeing on a preliminary name at the next meeting is not critical, but it would simplify the discussion and eliminate the ambiguous "the new BDI.SDD standard" phrase. This document should be considered an initial brainstorm. Please send your additions, comments, and criticism. d99 1 a99 1
  • Chuck Miller: How many XML schemas are currently in work within TDWG (Collections, BDI.SDD, Economic Botany, Geography, Spatial Data) and GBIF (DADI, ECAT, and DIGIT)? Is there a way to unify them under some more universal schemaML naming approach? This seems like a unique moment in time to start a precedent.
    d130 1 a130 1
  • Gregor: XSpec for the specimen collections? These may make a nice set of paired standards names for TDWG standards. Sadly XBio is rather an umbrella name than appropriate for BDI.SDD itself.
  • d133 1 a133 1
  • Gregor Hagedorn: The workgroup name "Structure of descriptive data" was originally explicitly chosen to describe an analysis process, rather than the proposed standard. However, there is already some history of calling our BDI.SDD thing "Structured Descriptive Data (BDI.SDD)". Used e. g. by Kevin Thiele, Bryan Heidorn, Donald Hobern... ! BDI.SDD may be an option for a new standard name. However, I like Chucks idea of putting all TDWG/GBIF standards under a common roof.
  • d153 1 a153 1 BDI.SDD (Structured Descriptive Data - port unclaimed?)
    d163 1 a163 1 Kevin: Got it! - we think that BDI.SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised Object d168 1 a168 1 Version 1 and 2 of this document were originally maintained at http://www.diversitycampus.net/Projects/TDWG-BDI.SDD/docs/SDD_I_StdNameChoices.html. @ 1.5 log @Added topic name via script @ text @d1 1 d4 1 a4 2 %META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1147082842" format="1.1" version="1.4"}% When the SDD group was initiated it was defined as a task group to explore the structure of descriptive data and come up with a proposal for a new standard to cast data currently held in DELTA and related formats into an xml standard. The TDWG subgroup name does not necessarily has to be the name of the standard. d12 1 a12 1 Agreeing on a preliminary name at the next meeting is not critical, but it would simplify the discussion and eliminate the ambiguous "the new SDD standard" phrase. This document should be considered an initial brainstorm. Please send your additions, comments, and criticism. d83 1 a83 1
  • Stan Blum: ExSDD (pronounced "Ex eS Dee Dee" or "ExcessDD" = exchange structure for descriptive data (not implying that the standard is excessive ;-) d85 2 a86 2
  • Bob Morris: Best yet, but XSDD has the same pronounciation and evokes XML
  • Liz Kolster: >I give a second on Stan's suggestion, ExSDD!
  • d99 1 a99 1
  • Chuck Miller: How many XML schemas are currently in work within TDWG (Collections, SDD, Economic Botany, Geography, Spatial Data) and GBIF (DADI, ECAT, and DIGIT)? Is there a way to unify them under some more universal schemaML naming approach? This seems like a unique moment in time to start a precedent.
    d130 1 a130 1
  • Gregor: XSpec for the specimen collections? These may make a nice set of paired standards names for TDWG standards. Sadly XBio is rather an umbrella name than appropriate for SDD itself.
  • d133 1 a133 1
  • Gregor Hagedorn: The workgroup name "Structure of descriptive data" was originally explicitly chosen to describe an analysis process, rather than the proposed standard. However, there is already some history of calling our SDD thing "Structured Descriptive Data (SDD)". Used e. g. by Kevin Thiele, Bryan Heidorn, Donald Hobern... ! SDD may be an option for a new standard name. However, I like Chucks idea of putting all TDWG/GBIF standards under a common roof.
  • d149 1 a149 1 ExSDD (Stan Blum)
    d153 1 a153 1 SDD (Structured Descriptive Data - port unclaimed?)
    d160 1 a160 1 XSDD (Bob Morris and Stan Blum)
    d163 1 a163 1 Kevin: Got it! - we think that SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised Object d168 1 a168 1 Version 1 and 2 of this document were originally maintained at http://www.diversitycampus.net/Projects/TDWG-SDD/docs/SDD_I_StdNameChoices.html. @ 1.4 log @none @ text @d1 2 @ 1.3 log @none @ text @d1 172 a172 173 %META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1086849663" format="1.0" version="1.3"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="ZZZObsoleteMoveTimestampAttribute"}%

    When the SDD group was initiated it was defined as a task group to explore the structure of descriptive data and come up with a proposal for a new standard to cast data currently held in DELTA and related formats into an xml standard. The TDWG subgroup name does not necessarily has to be the name of the standard.

    We had repeated very active discussions that produced a colorful range of candidates, However, no decision was taken yet, partly because in Lisbon I am responsible for putting it as a last point on the agenda, thinking it would revitalize us at the end. As the wiser of us may have expected, the opposite happened, we were all to exhausted after 6 full days of discussions and let the topic drop.

    Since this document is already very long, I have created a second topic NameForStandardWikiDiscussions. Please read this for reference, and put your comments into the new topic.

    Summary of discussion 2002:

    Agreeing on a preliminary name at the next meeting is not critical, but it would simplify the discussion and eliminate the ambiguous "the new SDD standard" phrase. This document should be considered an initial brainstorm. Please send your additions, comments, and criticism.

    Terms considered to cover the scope of the standard:

    Modifiers considered to cover the scope of the standard:

    Terms considered to be misleading:

    "Brainstorm" of possible names for the new standard:


    New Discussion in 2003 on email list

    Summary list updated by Kevin:

    BioDDS (Chuck Miller) (spinning off to BDDS -> BDS -> BD -> D ->DELTA ->Jim Croft)
    BioDescML (Chuck Miller)
    BiODML (Chuck Miller)
    BioML (Jim Croft) (taken - see xml.coverpages.org/bioml.html)
    BioTaxML (Chuck Miller)
    BiOTML (Chuck Miller)
    BODDS (Karen Medina)
    CAML (Jim Croft) (taken - see http://www.vision.fhg.de/~veenhuis/CAML/)
    ExSDD (Stan Blum)
    DescML (Jim Croft)
    DescriptionML (Gregor Hagedorn)
    PanML (Nick Lander, who will undoubtedly pass the port to Richard Pankhurst)
    SDD (Structured Descriptive Data - port unclaimed?)
    SDBO (Rich Pyle)
    SSDDBO (Rich Pyle)
    TDML (Guillaume Rousse)
    TaxDescML (Guillaume Rousse)
    xDELTA (don't know who to give the port to for this one - maybe Mike Dallwitz)
    XBio (Julian Humphries)
    XSDD (Bob Morris and Stan Blum)
    Xtax (Julian Humphries)

    Kevin: Got it! - we think that SDD will be pretty general, huh? Then Generalised Object Description Markup Language - an acronym to die for, surely. --- Eric Zurcher: Just be careful that it doesn't get corrupted to: Generalised Object Descriptive DAta Markup Notation.


    Version 1 and 2 of this document were originally maintained at http://www.diversitycampus.net/Projects/TDWG-SDD/docs/SDD_I_StdNameChoices.html.

    Again, since this document is already very long, please add your comments not here but in the new topic NameForStandardWikiDiscussions.
    Gregor Hagedorn; Vers. 2.1; 21. Nov. 2003 @ 1.2 log @none @ text @d1 1 a1 1 %META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1079431790" format="1.0" version="1.2"}% @ 1.1 log @none @ text @d1 2 a2 2 %META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1069406160" format="1.0" version="1.1"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="MoveTimestampAttribute"}% @