LeeBelbin - Fri Nov 20 2009 - Version 1.21
Parent topic: UBIF.SchemaDiscussion

ResolvedTopicCommonSchemaSearchingName

Main.BDI, ABCD, TaxonNames attempt to standardize a number of fundamental principles and make this a shared schema module (imported into Main.BDI, ABDC, TaxonNames, etc.) or even a stand-alone schema with its own namespace. This is primarily discussed in UBIF.SchemaDiscussion.

Here I want to ask for suggestions for another name or abbreviation for this "thing" to simplify discussions. So:

• CI = Common Infrastructure
• CIM = Common Infrastructure Model
• CIS = Common Infrastructure Standard
• CSF = Common Schema Foundation
• CIF = Common Interchange Framework
• CIF = Common Infrastructure Framework
• CBDF = Common Biodiversity Data Framework
• CDI = Common Data Infrastructure (my current favorite, similar to the ECMA CLI common language infrastructure)
• UBIF = Unified Biodiversity Information Framework (not General ... = GBIF) -- Main.WalterBerendsohn - 09 Jun 2004
• ... any better solutions?

Please add or comment on your preferences! We need feedback on this (and the other topics, reading alone does not help...)

-- Gregor Hagedorn - 24 May 2004

I vote against Infrastructure and for Framework (or perhaps Model, but Common Data Model sounds horribly over-used). It goes beyond just being a Structure and implies a whole Framework of ways to integrate data, but Infrastructure seems to me to suggest the software and networks that process the data. The names without Biodiversity in them seem too general and vague. I know that we hope to make our standards fully reusable but these names mean nothing. I therefore incline to CBDF or to CBDM (for Common Biodiversity Data Model), even though both are rather a mouthful.

-- Main.DonaldHobern - 03 Jun 2004

I agree with the Framework point -- Main.WalterBerendsohn - 09 Jun 2004

"Unified Biodiversity Information Framework" (UBIF, as a nomen novum for GBIF) is ok with me. My only regret is that I would have liked to express that the framework is larger than biodiversity (especially including all life sciences like molecular or medicine). LSID is scoped large, and I believe it makes sense to scope this large as well. Except for this point, however, I really like UBIF!

-- Gregor Hagedorn - 9 June 2004

I vote for UBIF, but I think it stands for "Unified Bioscience Information Framework". ubif.{org,net,info,name} are all presently available and if gbif or tdwg don't want to register them, I can and give them to whoever, whenever. Also, if ubif is the choice, perhaps somebody should start the procedure with ICANN(?) to register the urn.

I too want more breadth than biodiversity. At least "bioscience" lets me express restaurant guides in Main.BDI. As far as I am concerned, gastronomy is one of the biosciences. :-)

-- Main.BobMorris - 09 Jun 2004

That takes care of my reservations! -- Gregor Hagedorn - 9 June 2004

Yes, my restaurant guide will include whether reservations are required. :-) -- Main.BobMorris - 09 Jun 2004

Ah, that is what the UBIF CustomExtension element is good for :-) -- Gregor Hagedorn - 10 June 2004

Alas, if <lang"en-us"> the requiement would be not for a CustomExtension but rather for a CustomerExtension. When <lang"en-uk">, the word "Custom" has the sense of "business" or "retail trade", but nowhere(?) in the U.S. is it used that way. :-) -- Main.BobMorris - 10 Jun 2004.

A little bit seriously (well, not that seriously): we are starting some work with findingspecies.org on a guide to the monkey fruit trees of Ecuador. We could title it A simian guide to dining out in the forests of Ecuador. -- Main.BobMorris - 10 Jun 2004.

UBIF (Bioscience) sounds good to me.

-- Main.BryanHeidorn - 09 Jun 2004

I'm happy too.

-- Main.DonaldHobern - 10 Jun 2004

ok by me.

-- Main.JessieKennedy - 10 Jun 2004

so am I.

-- Main.MarkusDoering - 10 Jun 2004