| Lines 29-30 were replaced by line 29 |
| - ;Teleconference: |
| - KU does not see these as elements receiving GUIDs, only elements that may be reused in a document. Repositories sound fine to Napier, but they are not convinced that AccordingTos are an element that will be reused much. KU would like AccordingTos, but does not see it as a key issue. We agreed to revisit this after more reaction at TDWG. |
| + ;Teleconference: KU does not see these as elements receiving GUIDs, only elements that may be reused in a document. Repositories sound fine to Napier, but they are not convinced that AccordingTos are an element that will be reused much. KU would like AccordingTos, but does not see it as a key issue. We agreed to revisit this after more reaction at TDWG. |
| Lines 32-33 were replaced by line 31 |
| - KU Email: |
| - Add the ability to transfer an existing TaxonConcept by its GUID. The GUID would be sufficient, |
| + ;KU Email: Add the ability to transfer an existing TaxonConcept by its GUID. The GUID would be sufficient, no data would be allowed, to prevent a GUID being sent with incorrect data. |
| Line 35 was replaced by line 33 |
| - no data would be allowed, to prevent a GUID being sent with incorrect data. |
| + ;Teleconference: Napier explained that the GUID of an existing TaxonConcept (in the TaxonConcepts element) can be transfered in the TaxonConcept id attribute with the type attribute equal to "empty". KU now understands the thinking behind this, though would prefer for GUIDs in this element to be treated similarly to the GUIDs in the FromTaxonConcepts and ToTaxonConcepts elsewhere in the schema. There may not be an elegant way to prevent the transfer of a GUID with incompatible data, so we will table this disagreement for the time being. |
| Lines 37-38 were replaced by line 35 |
| - Teleconference: |
| - Napier explained that the GUID of an existing TaxonConcept (in the TaxonConcepts element) can be |
| + ;KU Email: Add the ability to transfer an existing "Assertion" by its GUID alone. |
| Line 40 was replaced by line 37 |
| - transfered in the TaxonConcept id attribute with the type attribute equal to "empty". KU now |
| + ;Teleconference: KU explained that this would allow the transfer of GUID-labeled relationships between data providers, just as a provider might wish to transfer a single GUID-labeled taxonConcept. Napier suggested that this could be done by putting the GUID in the Assertion id attribute, but acknowledged that the current solution is not ideal because there is no "type=empty" attribute that would indicate this element is a GUID and needs no further data. |
| Line 42 was replaced by line 39 |
| - understands the thinking behind this, though would prefer for GUIDs in this element to be treated |
| + ;Teleconference: Robert Kukla offered to create an updated version of the schema, with the agreed upon modifications for internal use by SEEK Taxon. The publicly presented schema will not change for the time being. With the new internal schema, Aimee will return to coding the parser for use in the EnterProviderData API. |
| Line 44 was replaced by line 41 |
| - similarly to the GUIDs in the FromTaxonConcepts and ToTaxonConcepts elsewhere in the schema. There |
| + Robert Kukla and Jessie will be leaving October 2 for TDWG in New Zealand. They will be presenting the schema as a global solution to the problem of exchanging taxonomic data. They would also like to represent the SEEK viewpoint (at the same conference, but at a separate time) on the definition of a taxonomic concept, and how the SEEK Taxon system will interact with the community. |
| Line 46 was replaced by line 43 |
| - may not be an elegant way to prevent the transfer of a GUID with incompatible data, so we will table |
| + Jessie will go directly from New Zealand to Kansas, joined by Trevor Paterson, for the SEEK All-hands meeting. |
| Lines 48-88 were replaced by line 45 |
| - this disagreement for the time being. |
| - |
| - KU Email: |
| - Add the ability to transfer an existing "Assertion" by its GUID alone. |
| - |
| - Teleconference: |
| - KU explained that this would allow the transfer of GUID-labeled relationships between data |
| - |
| - providers, just as a provider might wish to transfer a single GUID-labeled taxonConcept. Napier |
| - |
| - suggested that this could be done by putting the GUID in the Assertion id attribute, but |
| - |
| - acknowledged that the current solution is not ideal because there is no "type=empty" attribute that |
| - |
| - would indicate this element is a GUID and needs no further data. |
| - |
| - |
| - Teleconference: |
| - Robert Kukla offered to create an updated version of the schema, with the agreed upon |
| - |
| - modifications for internal use by SEEK Taxon. The publicly presented schema will not change for the |
| - |
| - time being. With the new internal schema, Aimee will return to coding the parser for use in the |
| - |
| - EnterProviderData API. |
| - |
| - Robert Kukla and Jessie will be leaving October 2 for TDWG in New Zealand. They will be |
| - |
| - presenting the schema as a global solution to the problem of exchanging taxonomic data. They would |
| - |
| - also like to represent the SEEK viewpoint (at the same conference, but at a separate time) on the |
| - |
| - definition of a taxonomic concept, and how the SEEK Taxon system will interact with the community. |
| - |
| - Jessie will go directly from New Zealand to Kansas, joined by Trevor Paterson, for the SEEK |
| - |
| - All-hands meeting. |
| - |
| - The [next conference call | TaxonWGConferenceCallAvailableTimes] is tentatively scheduled for |
| - |
| - Thursday, 2 September 2004, 15:00 GMT. |
| + The [next conference call | TaxonWGConferenceCallAvailableTimes] is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, 2 September 2004, 15:00 GMT. |
