Some comments emailed in by Arthur:

1. In the Recommendations, I think there separate Recommendation on the consistent naming of TDWG Standards. It is mentioned under 4.9.1, but this is a very important issue that I believe needs separating out. We obviously need to develop a naming convention/standard.

2. Another recommendation: I sent Lee some time back an example of a pseudo-standards organisation that included in its documentation a section on "Who the standard is aimed at". I can't find that reference at the moment. "Museum Curators" etc. I think this is a very good idea and would recommend it in the documentation as a mandatory.

3. Recommendation 4.6.2. Why "US English"? I think you need to add some justification in your justification statement.

4. Recommendation 4.9.5. I think it is worth also including here "How the Standard should be cited" It is often very difficult to find out how to cite /reference a particular standard (and books sometimes). It is easily solved by adding a one line "This Standard is to be cited as: ...." near the Copyright statement.

5. Appendix A

a. Botanical Periodicals I believe is now also available as a searchable on-line database (TDWG has not discussed though). There was something on TAXACOM about this some time back.

b. HISPID - there is now a Version 4. I don't believe that this version has been submitted as a TDWG Standard.

Conn, B.J. (ed.) 2000. HISPID4. Herbarium Information Standards and Protocols for Interchange of Data. Version 4 - Internet only version. Sydney: Royal Botanic Gardens. http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/Hispid4/ [Accessed 23 Dec 2005].

-- RogerHyam - 23 Dec 2005