Open
Description
A couple comments regarding the Standards page.
- The opening paragraph could be informative and explicit by defining the 'status' types and categories. Here's my working paragraph.
All TDWG standards have a status and assigned category. "Current" standards official TDWG data standards actively maintained through a designated maintenance group. For more information about official standards and maintenance groups, please visit our ** page. The "Draft" status is assigned to standards currently under review, a step required before official ratification. For more information about the ratification process, please see ***. (Additional status types listed on the page).
Our standards are also available as a collection on FAIRsharing.org, where you can discover how and where our standards are used across the bioinformatics community. - In regards to FAIRsharing, I understand the special regard many of us have for FAIR, but I'm sure there are several locations where people can see how and where TDWG standards are used. Should we link to a more comprehensive table? Is the intent to provide special consideration for FAIRsharing? For the uninitiated, it looks out of place.
- The categories are confusing. At the top, two status types are described, Current and Draft. Then the standards are listed under Current, 2005, and Prior. What is a '2005' standard? Is that a status? What is a 'Prior' standard?
I think we would open the page with a short overview, followed by a short description of each standard status, then group them accordingly below. For example, a sentence is added explaining what a 'prior' standard is (may not be 10)% accurate)
'Prior' standards have undergone the official ratification process, but are no longer actively maintained.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels