In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shorthouse, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Andy et al., >I temporarily subscribed to this listserv once again to: And have apparently unsubscribed, again. Nonetheless, I'll reply, for the benefit of other readers. >1) apologize for allowing my emotions get in the way of what can be a >fantastic solution to a very difficult problem Thank you for the apology. On the basis that you are apologising for falsely accusing me of spamming, I am happy to accept. > and, >2) offer advice to take your proposed species microformats to the next >level of resilience in the face of taxonomic uncertainties. Thank you; but the proposal already has adequate resilience. [...] >I also expect GUIDs in the form of LSIDs to contribute in a >dramatic fashion to the aggregation of taxonomic resources in a >rigorous manner, but there is as yet little work done on the very difficult >problem of developing and maintaining name resolution functionality (i.e. the >synonymic to current nomenclatural mappings, though triple stores, >RDF, and other similar schema have some promise). That's future-gazing, again. >I hope proponents of microformats can sit at these tables. The current problem with the millions of >species pages in existence is that there are very few schemes governing their >structure and yet there is an opportunity here to do something >remarkable because all biological names naturally have structure. A structure which can be marked up using the current proposal. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to point out the incompatibilities, which, like those raised previously, will be speedily addressed. >But, there is a responsibility here to do it right. Indeed. However, your opinion as to what is "right" is not the only one; and your opinion does not sit with the methodologies used by microformats. > Organizations like the Taxonomic >Databases Working Group (TDWG) have participated in realizing the >sorts of things biologists dream about. Is there a TDWG participant here >to help species microformats be recognized and adopted? They have been invited. > So, I apologize for directing a line of questioning that in a >number of instances stepped beyond the goals of species microformats. I hope >you appreciate the fact that my goals are much the same as yours I think it is apparent that they are not. > I am well familiar with your proposal since it was first brought to my attention >on the forum I maintain. You may be "familiar" with it, but the evidence is that you have, sadly, failed to grasp its intent or implications. >However, I would have appreciated being >contacted directly about it rather than seeing it in an arachnologists' >forum. And what makes you so special that you should have been contacted personally? >Species microformats have nothing directly to do with spider research and >identification in their present level of acceptance and adoption. No, but they do apply to marking-up the names of spiders, when they're published on the web. >They are at this stage a web developer's tool with future client >possibilities. No, microformats already have lots of practical uses. >Andy, because our discussion had degraded to a level that would offend >the school children and others who use the Nearctic Arachnologists' >Forum, I did indeed wipe out the thread. You censored something (a cut & paste of <http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-December/007501.html>), which was not offensive, but which did contain criticism of your actions and refutations of your spurious claims. I stand by what wrote there. > However, if I receive a similar public apology >from you, I will re-enable your account in the forum and will welcome >your participation in arachnology research and appreciation. I owe you no apology. >First, I urge you to be patient and to recognize the fact that many people, >especially those who are involved in developing biological resources >on the web, just won't "get it". I am an exception. On the contrary - you clearly don't "get" what has been proposed. >I have read through your species microformat proposal and fully >understand it. I was evidently out of line by playing devil's advocate >and forcing you to think outside the box. Why should we now take what you say at face value, if you are saying that your previous comments were not sincere? >In the face of the mess taxonomy can be at times, it would be worth >thinking about GUIDs like LSIDs for use in microformats for species. uBio >is but one provider of LSIDs. There are at least a half dozen other >providers and many more are in the works. The fact that you say the above, when GUIDs have already been taken into account and are covered by the existing proposal; and when you have been told that more than once, is clear evidence that you either do not understand the proposal, or are again "playing devil's advocate". >I have participated in the upcoming GBIF portal development, an >initiative in the works called SpeciesBase, which if realized will be >what GBIF is for primary collections data, but for species pages, and >will be participating in the Entomological Collections Network where a >lot of work is devoted to producing web-based resources for collections >data. Future-gazing, again. Nonetheless, please fell free to point out what you think might be published by that process, which could not be marked up using the current proposal. -- Andy Mabbett Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/> Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk> _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss