In the straw poll, Steve Dietz noted that it was "not clear that AMICO should expend license income to develop such standards" referring to methods of recording disputed facts in standard documentary structures. Actually, I agree that our statement of this as if it was a resource allocation issue rather than a "what we all agree makes, or could make, the AMICO data valuable and unique as an educational resource" issue, was premature. In any case, if it were to cost a great deal to make such standards work, we'd all probably think twice. What we were trying to do was describe the kind of product that AMICO can make that is unlikely to be made commercially, and to explore its attributes. This was one of the characteristics of museum data which appealed to universities and which they know they won't get from commercial sources (discussions of disputed attribution for example). We meant simply to point to this, and ask whether AMICO participants also saw this as a valuable potential charactistic of their data. Who develops standards (and who pays for that development) should have been left as a subsequent business decision. Sorry we weren't clearer. David