[obs] Joining DwC, OBOE, PO and PATO

[Cam Webb]

Hi Hilmar,

> ... , but an effort that is free from the legacy usage requirements can 
> probably make faster progress on the hairy process of nailing down the 
> consensus semantics of the major concepts in this area. ...
> 
>> The formal acceptance of such a new standard would take a long time.  What 
>> do you suggest doing in the meantime?
>
> I don't think that a process of formal acceptance of a new standard needs to 
> or should hold up using it.
> ...
> So I don't see any hindrances to moving ahead.

What do you think would be the best platform for laying out the various 
design options that are being discuss here and on tdwg-content, free from 
DwC or LSID-voc constraints (for the moment), with the goal of a 
consensus-based draft of a biodiversity information template for the 
semantic web?  A new Task Group within TDWG?  Something at NESCent?  It 
would be good to capitalize on the momentum we have now and to throw down 
the various notes and emergent consensus in one place.  Bob Morris is 
frequently warning us about the dangers of developing SW structures 
without fully realizing what we're doing, but I'd rather we go ahead, with 
someone who really understands those unforeseen consequences watching, 
than just wait for a more formal collaboration to happen.

Best,

Cam