23 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
23 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
---+!! %TOPIC%
|
|
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1069409700" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="NameForStandard"}%
|
|
(This is a discussion area based on the previous extensive discussions in person and on the email list, documented in NameForStandard.)
|
|
|
|
I think we just have to come out with some really personal choices. I held myself back partly because I did like the idea (first raised by Chuck) to forge a family of multiple tdwg standards that have a common naming pattern. I proposed this in the plenary summary discussion in Lisbon (twdg 2003) but the other groups were not very enthusiastic. So, we are free to choose.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, my preferences are:
|
|
|
|
1. <nop>DescriptionML - we can correctly grab a broad are, SDD is not restricted to biology<br/>
|
|
2. <nop>SDD - Structured Descriptive Data<br/>
|
|
3. <nop>CompL (spoken compel) - comparative data language<br/>
|
|
4. <nop>xDelta - to honor Delta<br/>
|
|
|
|
(or <nop>ComeOn, <nop>ComparativE Ontology Notation?)
|
|
|
|
Please add your hitlists, maybe something will emerge!
|
|
|
|
Gregor Hagedorn - 21 Nov 2003
|
|
|
|
---
|