Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Review "Prior standards" and decide to either Retire/Recommend #21

Closed
peterdesmet opened this issue Dec 28, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed
Labels
standards review review of prior and current (2005) standards

Comments

@peterdesmet
Copy link
Member

There are currently 13 prior standards: https://github.com/tdwg/prior-standards

Given that:

... the 13 prior standards should be reviewed by the @tag and it should be decided to either retire or recommended these. If they are recommended, they should get their proper repository (like was done for https://github.com/tdwg/wgsrpd) and custodians. An easy way forward would be to send a message to the community that each of these standards will be retired in 90 days, unless there is objection (for specific standards) and willingness to maintain (or at least much better document) these. I'll leave it to the @tag to create separate issues for the discussion of each prior standard.


The 13 prior standards are:

Standard Publication date
Botanico-Periodicum-Huntianum 1970
Botanico-Periodicum-Huntianum/Supplementum 1971
Taxonomic Literature (TL-2) 1976
Floristic regions of the world 1986
International Transfer Format for Botanic Garden Plant Records (IFT2) 1987
Index herbariorum. Part 1, The herbaria of the world 1990
A Language for the Definition and Exchange of Biological Data Sets (XDF) 1991
Authors of Plant Names 1992
World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD) 1992
Economic Botany Data Collection Standard 1995
Plant Names in Botanical Databases 1995
Plant Occurrence and Status Scheme (POSS) 1995
Herbarium Information Standards and Protocols for Interchange of Data (HISPID3) 1996
@baskaufs
Copy link

Each of these standards now has a proper landing page to which their permanent URLs dereference. So to some extent that deals with this issue. The other aspects can be subsumed by the new issue #37

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
standards review review of prior and current (2005) standards
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants