%META:TOPICINFO{author="GarryJolleyRogers" date="1259118874" format="1.1" version="1.5"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="WebHome"}%
<h2>First :-) meeting of Biological Descriptions IG, Saturday 9-13:00</h2>

(This is the first meeting, because the existing SDD Interest Group has decided to rename itself to Biological Descriptions)

<h2>Attendance:</h2>
   * Donat Agosti
   * Andreas Müller
   * Bob Morris
   * Bryan Heidorn
   * Charles Kahindo Muzusa-Ngabo
   * Alex Chapman
   * Cynthia Parr
   * Qin Wei
   * Franck Theeten
   * David Eades
   * Gregor Hagedorn
   * Jim Graham

<h2>TOPICS</h2>
   * Brief introduction, Charter
   * Key packages versus making the comparision
   * Outreach, getting identification key data online
   * What are the tasks, who can contribute what?
      * Is creation of natural language descriptions from data, aids to publish is in scope of SDD? Yes, applications shall support it. D. Dimitirev's 3I is doing natural generation / readable. 
   * SPM 
   * RDF/OWL reasoning group: Greg, Bob, Stinger, Martin Pullan likes to review, Cynthia. Try to involve Dan Miranker, Mark Schildhauer
       * Cynthia: Use cases, SPM
       * Exporting to RDF:SDD, translation
       * Concentrate on minimum set of RDF-SDD for species pages as RDF:SDD

Australia has an old local version of a SPM-like standard: Flora Australia which has blocks, also has structure for branching keys: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/flora/pubs/fl-australia-schema.html, there is xsd on there.


Task group: expose as many data in SDD as possible

Task group: discuss possible minor alignment in naming between SDD and SPM with regard to how concepts are named.

Side note on omission in SDD: The diagnostic context of a diagnostic description can not unambigiously expressed in SDD. For example, the set of diagnostic characters differs whether sister species shall be distinguished or whether all species in a family shall be distinguished 

-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 22 Sep 2007