Re: [uf-discuss] species microformats OpenSearch
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ou wrote (END) [David Shorthouse wrote:] Please note my earlier comment on quoting formats. And this is exactly what uBio already provides with their LinkIT tool (http://names.mbl.edu/tools/linkit.php) and essentially nullifies the need for microformat mark-up. I fail to see how you can claim that the uBio nullifies the need for microformat markup; when it provides virtually none of the functionally provided by microformats. I refer you again to the initial proposal: Imagine viewing a web page with a reference to a species - and being able to use an add-on to you browser to be taken directly to information about that species, on, say, Wikipedia, or Wikispecies, or Google Images, or another site, such as in an academic database, of your choosing. Your software would automatically know to search site A if the scientific name referred to a moth, site B for a bird, and site C for a plant - and you could set your preferences as to which sites those were to be, and in which order two or more were to be searched (e.g. for moths, try UK Moths (http://ukmoths.org.uk/) first, if not found try The Global Lepidoptera Names Index (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/lepindex/index.h tml)). Or supposing someone writes a long, chronologically-ordered web page about all the birds, insects, mammals and plants they saw on a wildlife safari, with lots of prose description about the paces where they saw them and the people they were with, but you want to extract a list of species, sorted into alphabetical order within taxonomic class (birds first, then insects then...) or in taxonomic order. Those are just two of the things a species microformat might do for you. Please explain how uBio does those things; taking: http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/ladywalk/latest and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-tailed_godwit as test cases. I previously argued with you on my forum (http://canadianarachnology.dy ndns.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118) this point and you provided no compelling argument for me to spend effort marking up my pages with microformat. I wasn't aware that you were the person with whom I'd had that discussion, some months ago. Nor was I aware that the discussion had continued, since your forum does not appear to send e-mail notices of further replies (leastways , I received none). I note also that Charles Roper, my co-proponent of this proposal, subsequently gave you a lengthy reply. A glib reply was not convincing. Nor was one given. My reply may have been short, but it was accurate and pertinent. I argue that using such generic microformats as species or taxon provides no valuable information is no better than having binomen. And I have already shown you how it does; nor is having binomen a bad thing. In fact, I would argue that using such mark-up may dangerously provide mis-information if not intelligently implemented. Unfounded scare-mongering. Take for example a politically-charged scenario where a genus receives revision, species renamed, and consequently erroneously struck from a red-list merely because the name cannot then be found via a hypothetical web page aggregator that uses microformats. Such bizarrely hypothetical speculation - not to mention the political slant - is way outside the scope of microformats. I have no fundamental problem with microformats; I believe there is a responsibility here to do it right and not simply provide something because something is better than nothing. So do I. However, you don't appear to see, or to appreciate, what the it is that we're trying to do. -- 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
Re: [uf-discuss] New Microformats Cheatsheet PDF
Ryan Cannon wrote: ... I till prefer ?, + and *, as I have to continually move my eye between the two charts in order to remember which is which. I would remember ?, + and *. --- while i agree, i am trying to strike a happy balance between those of use who KNOW the REGEX syntax and those who don't have a Computer Science degree. The '?' tends to look like maybe, we don't know or some sort of image/character is missing. I don't claim to be a designer, but something with the look and feel of the '?' doesn't quite sit right with my eye at the moment - but i'll have a play around and see if i can't work something out. Perhaps instead of the table on the right, which duplicates the other information on the page, you could have a similar column to the right of each class name, with either and symbols for occurrence: --- the tricky thing is that you still need to know what that cardinality is with respect to a given format. URL in hCard is 0-*, whereas URL in hCalendar is 0-1. Regardless, moving the class name requirements closer to the structure list will decrease the amount of time a reader takes to look up the the information. --- i agree, originally the only way to tell the cardinality was to typography of the text, bold, italics, bold-italics, or normal. The characters on the right were a recent addition - and i couldn't just bold/italicize those words because the cardinality depends on the specific microformat. I know on the wiki there has been work to have typography and to add the 'indicator' characters. This is something that might make it into the next cheatsheet, or again i am trying to strike a happy balance between the folks who know REGEX and those who barely know HTML. saying class=vcard? might get literally cut-and-pasted into their HTML. One of the things i had considered was to allow the master InDesign File to be downloaded as well, so people could re-mix the information in any way they wanted... i don't think i'm quite ready for that until the data itself is more stable and error free. At that point, folks can do what they like and know their version is pretty reliable. Thanks for all the suggestions, -brian ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
RE: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
Mike Schinkel wrote: The core problem is no strategies have been adopted to avoid naming collisions, and to avoid having the whole concept self destruct from it's own weight of complexity. People who want to contribute but can't because the centralized Microformat community is not interested will go off and create their own and names start clashing, we'll just be left with one big mess. Most of the Microformat community seems to want to keep Microformats a tight knit club focused on a small number of use cases that reviews and approves everything, declining things they don't like, but I think there is really an obligation to the Internet at large to address how to scale the process because Microformats squat on a scare resource (names in classes.) Mike, you've raised some excellent concerns. It fundamentally boils down to an issue of interoperability. If the Microformat's community splinters and, say, multiple versions of hCard are created then we immediately have an interoperability problem. Tantek calls namespaces an enabler of stovepipes. I hope that Tantek will weigh in on this issue. In the past he has addressed this issue, but a regular repeat is very worthwhile I believe. It strikes at the very heart of the Microformat's philosophy, and the very heart of achieving interoperability on the Web. /Roger ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] hrecipe examples
On Dec 7, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Ted Drake wrote: Hi All Are there any examples of an hrecipe encoded page? I realize it is still in development. I'd like to see if there has been any progress made and/or something to go by. I've looked at the twiki and there seems to be examples of recipe pages, but I don't see any hrecipe encoding on them. There is no hRecipe. There is research into a recipe microformat, but there is no microformat (yet?). -ryan -- Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
On Dec 6, 2006, at 5:45 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On 12/5/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... In HTML or JSON, new formats need new parsers, which must be written by someone. Exactly. The point is if you have a generic model you have a generic parser. Elias is coming from an RDF background, and microformats simply aren't RDF, and they never will be. And that's a good thing. If what you want is RDF, just use RDF. The issue isn't really microformats vs. RDF (except as RDF provides a model), but microformats vs. RDFa. Both microformats and RDFa are addressing the exact same use cases and requirements (augmenting visible content with structured data). RDFa includes namespacing, the lack of which is already a problem in microformats (witness hCite and the serious awkwardness that title will be indicate using fn), and which will grow over time as more and more people want to mark up their content. Moreover, the need to write dedicate code for each new microformat will also present serious scalability problems. Yes, in order to parse and consume microformats, you'll have to have code that knows about those formats. The RDF dream of having a generic parser and model has yet to win on the open web. I'm more than happy to let the market decide whether it's more value to have formats that are easy to publish, or those that are easy to parse (I'm sure you can guess which side I'll take). Finally, that there's no model at the heart of microformats with clear extension rules means that the vaunted social process here is a mess. It's all centralized, and people get frustrated when their pet property isn't included because they know what that means: the tools written for the blessed microformats won't see them. I agree that there are cases where we can be more organized and I'm more than willing to implement new tools or processes to do this. Also, I'm not sure how 'people not getting their pet properties' is a problem specific to microformats. With other technologies, like XML, the person who didn't get their pet property included in a given namespace could create their own namespace and advocate that people make use of it. Still, I don't believe that it changes the reality that tools won't know what to do with it unless *someone* writes some code. I don't think the situation is any worse in microformats, and it may in fact be better. If your 'pet property' doesn't make it into a microformat, you can still publish it and advocate that others use it. If consumers of said microformat decide that the data is valuable, they'll parse it and if enough people do this, then it'll get added to the microformat. -ryan -- Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Issue with fn org when also organization unit
I Concur. On 12/7/06, Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mine too. I think that the org-fn rule should state something to the effect that if organization-name is given, then if fn and organization-name match, then the hcard is an organization hcard. I've added this as an issue on http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-issues -ryan On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:52 PM, David Janes wrote: This would be my preferred solution, but it doesn't conform to the Org Contact Info rule [1]. Regards, etc... [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard#Organization_Contact_Info On 11/25/06, Chris Messina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/25/06, David Janes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To make it an organization hCard, I need somehow to have org == fn, while still independently expressing the -unit. Something like this ... span class=org fn organization-nameABC, Inc./span, span class=org span class=organization-unitNorth American Division/span /span ... which strikes me as inadequate. Thoughts? Why not: span class=org span class=fn organization-nameABC, Inc./span, span class=organization-unitNorth American Division/span /span I dunno if that's legit, but just another class ordering. Chris -- Chris Messina Citizen Provocateur Open Source Ambassador-at-Large Work: http://citizenagency.com Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog Cell: 412 225-1051 Skype: factoryjoe This email is: [ ] bloggable[X] ask first [ ] private ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://www.onamine.com http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss -- Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://www.onamine.com http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
RE: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
S. Sriram wrote: This is not a scarce resource, people can (and are) naming classes as they choose. Any constraint happens at the parsing stage, since microformat-aware parsers look for specific class names etc. (see below) If it is not a scarce resource, please tell me what would happen if I decided to start marking up documents, as an example, using the class directory and license, for purposes other than rel-directory and re-license? How could my markup and those Microformats co-exist in the same HTML document? -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
On 12/7/06, Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The RDF dream of having a generic parser and model has yet to win on the open web. I'm more than happy to let the market decide whether it's more value to have formats that are easy to publish, or those that are easy to parse (I'm sure you can guess which side I'll take). Why does this need to be an either/or choice? Why must ease-of-authoring trade-off generality here? ... Also, I'm not sure how 'people not getting their pet properties' is a problem specific to microformats. True. It doesn't mean it has to repeat the same mistake though. I would certainly hope the HTML 5 effort would be open minded about learning from all of the efforts in this space. Bruce ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
On Dec 7, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: On 12/7/06, Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The RDF dream of having a generic parser and model has yet to win on the open web. I'm more than happy to let the market decide whether it's more value to have formats that are easy to publish, or those that are easy to parse (I'm sure you can guess which side I'll take). Why does this need to be an either/or choice? Why must ease-of-authoring trade-off generality here? I'm not saying that it has to be, but that it appears to be so in practice. I've found that general purpose data formats are harder to author than specific ones. For example, HTML is more work than Markdown for the kinds of writing that Markdown allows. I tend to use Markdown pretty often because of that. ... Also, I'm not sure how 'people not getting their pet properties' is a problem specific to microformats. True. It doesn't mean it has to repeat the same mistake though. I would certainly hope the HTML 5 effort would be open minded about learning from all of the efforts in this space. HTML 5 has profile URIs and the specification is much more clear as to how they are to be used (thanks to Tantek bugging Hixie about that). I think HTML 5's current extension methods (profiles, rel and class) are sufficient. -ryan ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
From: Ryan King [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Dec 5, 2006, at 8:48 AM, S. Sriram wrote: From: Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006- December/00 8462.html I wonder if his issues can be addressed? How about a distributed parser-discovery service What's wrong with GRDDL [http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec]? Nothing. Except that in this case it introduces yet another parsing burden on the browser/renderer i.e. from rdf/xml to JSON or other renderable format. S. Sriram ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
From: Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] S. Sriram wrote: This is not a scarce resource, people can (and are) naming classes as they choose. Any constraint happens at the parsing stage, since microformat-aware parsers look for specific class names etc. (see below) If it is not a scarce resource, please tell me what would happen if I decided to start marking up documents, as an example, using the class directory and license, for purposes other than rel-directory and re-license? How could my markup and those Microformats co-exist in the same HTML document? They would simply co-exist. Period. Hypothetically, say the author uses rel-license for some internal markup and has unwittingly cut/pasted in a uf-snippet containing a rel-license tag. The consumer of this microformat will now be presented with spurious/confusing data. How different is this from a web page (today) that contains a rel-license entry which was not intended to be a microformat in the first place. Not much. This too will lead to a spurious/confusing interpretation if consumed as a microformat. But, is that not what ALL current usages of this are and is that not how microformats even chooses these terms by sifting through the way people actually use them. In other words, just finding a markup on a page that resembles a microformat 'does not necessarily mean that is is one'. This is true today. The burden of interpretation is on the consumer not the author. Now, if the argument is that authors are 'constrained' in their class naming freedom, and have to avoid the usage of rel-license altogether (unless used as specifically noted by microformats.org) since microformats have 'squatted' on it. The response is NO, you are not constrained, as the burden of interpretation falls on the consumer of the microformat and not its author. As for multiple namespaces and a bureaucracy to govern that, it is highly unlikely. What is more likely is a white/blacklisting mechanism if spammers etc. begin wide use of it, much the same way blogs are being white/blacklisted. S. Sriram ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
On Dec 7, 2006, at 2:28 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: If it is not a scarce resource, please tell me what would happen if I decided to start marking up documents, as an example, using the class directory and license, for purposes other than rel-directory and re-license? The classes wouldn't cause any problems, but if you mean the rel attribute, that would cause parsers to do confusing things with the data. Then people would start complaining to the parser developers, and the parser developers would start ignoring those attributes unless they were accompanied by the appropriate profile headers. And then publishers would start using the appropriate profile headers to disambiguate their microformats. None of that is happening now because there's no (or very little) ambiguity now, so there's little incentive to pre-emptively disambiguate. But if ambiguity ever becomes a real problem, there's a solution in profile headers ready to be used. The next question I expect is: what if you want to use both the microformats.org rel-license and your own conflicting rel-license in the same document? Well, you can't. Just like in natural language, if you want to start using symbols with meanings that conflict with the established standard, you need to be prepared to establish a new standard meaning. And the usefulness of your new meaning, rather than some central authority, will determine whether or not people use it in place of the alternative meaning. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] species microformats OpenSearch
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Please note my earlier comment on quoting formats. [David Shorthouse wrote:] Sorry, you'll just have to tolerate it. Until Microsoft updates Office 2007 to deal with this possible bug with text email, I refuse to install 3rd party plug-ins. Other people using the same software that you use seem to manage; and nobody has suggested you use a 3rd party plug in. Imagine viewing a web page with a reference to a species - and being able to use an add-on to you browser to be taken directly to information about that species, on, say, Wikipedia, or Wikispecies, or Google Images, or another site, such as in an academic database, of your choosing. I wrote the above, not you. [David Shorthouse wrote:] The key word here is imagine. Please show me where a species microformat mark-up does this. That's a ridiculous request - you've already been told, more than once, that this is a proposal, not a finished product. uBio's LinkIT tool recognizes all the binomen on a submitted webpage ... a web page which must be *manually* submitted... and creates links to recognized scientific bodies of work where one can be assured that the name is valid, or to receive the species' current nomenclature. It would be trivial for them to also produce a species list from such outputs or to permit a user to select what site they would like to be redirected to for more information. This, without any microformats. ...and again that's hypothetical. Or are there any active proposals to do that? Your software would automatically know to search site A if the scientific name referred to a moth, site B for a bird, and site C for a plant [David Shorthouse wrote:] And what does a microformat browser plug-in do when it comes across a species name, _Agathis montana_ if the individual who created the mark-up did not indicate that this species is a wasp and not a conifer (they share the same name, which is perfectly acceptable because they are in different Kingdoms). *If* they did not do so, then the result could be, for instance: http://names.ubio.org/browser/search.php?names=onauthors=onsci=onvern=onsearch_all=Agathis+montana (aka http://tinyurl.com/voofq ) or, if the user so desires: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Agathis+montana%22 Why is that a problem? The issue of the same name being used for two species, in different kingdoms, has already been addressed, in previous discussion, to which you have been referred, but which you appear not to have read. [David Shorthouse wrote:] Your copy pasted post to the forum I maintain was no better than spam. That's a lie, and a libel (evidenced, not least by your previous involvement in discussion in response to that post). Otherwise, feel free to report me to my ISP. Had you took the time to read through the registration process, you would have noticed that email replies are not provided. Indeed - note that I said that your forum did not do so, not that I didn't know that it did not do so. And I have already shown you how it does; nor is having binomen a bad thing. [David Shorthouse wrote:] Sorry, you have not. I was replying to your assertion, which you have not quoted, that : I argue that using such generic microformats as species or taxon provides no valuable information is no better than having binomen. and indeed I have, when I pointed out that your example: h1span class=speciesTheridion agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1 conveys more, and more semantic, information than simply: h1Theridion agrifoliae Levi, 1957/h1 Take for example a politically-charged scenario where a genus receives revision, species renamed, and consequently erroneously struck from a red-list merely because the name cannot then be found via a hypothetical web page aggregator that uses microformats. Such bizarrely hypothetical speculation - not to mention the political slant - is way outside the scope of microformats. [David Shorthouse wrote:] And why should it be? You appear to have a very poor grasp of what microformats are, and what they are for. Once again, I refer you to the introductory material recommended to you by Charles Roper. Are not microformats a step toward the semantic web? Very much so. Until you can demonstrate how microformats for taxa are linked to works like Species2000 there is an obvious attempt to accommodate the very dynamic and often problematic nature of binomen (e.g. with ties to LSIDs), I won't mark-up any of the species pages I host The option to do those things *is* already demonstrated on the pages to which you have previously been referred; there is no intention to mandate such links. You have a very specific need (or, rather, wish) which the proposal caters for completely; it does not cater for your apparent wish to impose your methodology on others.
[uf-discuss] Mars Moon news stories
Both Mars and the Moon have been in the news this week: * water on mars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6214834.stm http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20061206b.html * Mars landers photographed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6211870.stm http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/newsroom/pressreleases/20061204a.html http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001521_2025/ The complete image is centered at 22.3 degrees latitude, 312.1 degrees East longitude. * Moon base proposed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6210154.stm http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/dec/HQ_06361_ESMD_Lunar_Architecture.html and in each case specific locations are referred to. Where are we, with the 'Mars': http://microformats.org/wiki/mars and 'Luna': http://microformats.org/wiki/luna proposals? -- 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
RE: RE: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
--- these values are not reserved across all of HTML. We have a mechanism to prevent this, it is called Profile URIs, if a parser comes across class=vcard then the best way to determine if this is a random CSS Style or a semantic value is to see if there is a Profile URI that matched the XMDP of hCard. Are you referring to this? http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#profiles Is a Profile URI a well-known URI where I have to find semantics elsewhere or if not what format is returned by the URI? (just trying to understand) How can I disambiguate when two Microformats collide? Let me give a concrete example (one I will be working on in the future): Looking at ADR, here is an example: div class=adr div class=street-address665 3rd St./div div class=extended-addressSuite 207/div span class=localitySan Francisco/span, span class=regionCA/span span class=postal-code94107/span div class=country-nameU.S.A./div /div Now let's say I want to use something called RegionData where Regions are heirarchical: div class=region-data div class=region street title=child-of-city 665 3rd St.; Suite 207 /div span class=region city title=child-of-stateSan Francisco/span, span class=region state title=child-of-countryCA/span span class=post-code94107/span div class=region country title=child-of-continentU.S.A./div /div Now, someone needs to use both: div class=region-data vcard div class=region street title=child-of-city div class=street-address665 3rd St./div div class=extended-addressSuite 207/div /div span class=region city locality title=child-of-stateSan Francisco/span, span class=region state region title=child-of-countryCA/span span class=post-code postal-code94107/span div class=region country country-name title=child-of-continentU.S.A./div /div How do I disambiguate between region-data's region and vcard's region? Assume I created my RegionData with no knowledge that vcard existed, because unless there is a central clearing house to avoid name clashes, two different groups will end up creating conflicting microformats with clashing names. It is also only a hypothetical issue, so until this becomes a real issue, we're not going to worry too much about it, but we do have a system that solves this problem. So we aren't squatting on any values. Hypothetical issues sometimes have a way of biting people in the ass, using a phrase Mark Baker recently said on the REST-discuss forum on another topic. :) However, this is not a hypothetical issue. A project I'm working on that I'm not willing to go public with yet will make heavy use of microformats-like markup, and I've already seen a lot of potential for collision such as the one above, which is an example of a planned use. But maybe Profile URIs can solve this. Can you please explain how, using my example? -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
RE: [uf-discuss] Comments from IBM/Lotus rep about Microformats
S. Sriram wrote: They would simply co-exist. Period My only response to your comments is that I strongly disagree with you, but as you appears you have a similar conviction it would be a waste of time to debate it further. -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
RE: Re: RE: [uf-discuss] [citation] url field
Ironically, this sounds like another real-world (i.e. not hypothetical) example of the need to provide a way to differentiate microformats. -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael McCracken Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 6:05 PM To: Microformats Discuss Subject: Re: Re: RE: [uf-discuss] [citation] url field This seems to have been buried - so again, to anyone interested in hCite: I want to define a new field URL to denote an http URL that points to the location of a copy of the cited work. URIs that encode an identifier of the work can be combined with this field, but do not need to be. I understand that the name URL may overlap a bit with URI, and something like downloadlink, etc. might be more direct, but I argue that URL is the better choice because it is the most common name already in use in our examples from the web. Can we discuss this revised version of the proposal (or just vote on it?) Thanks, -mike ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
differentiating microformats (was Re: RE: Re: RE: [uf-discuss] [citation] url field )
Mike, can you explain what you mean in the context of the citation format? I haven't been following many of the other threads on this list this week, so I don't know what you're referring to. Thanks! -mike On 12/7/06, Mike Schinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ironically, this sounds like another real-world (i.e. not hypothetical) example of the need to provide a way to differentiate microformats. -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael McCracken Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 6:05 PM To: Microformats Discuss Subject: Re: Re: RE: [uf-discuss] [citation] url field This seems to have been buried - so again, to anyone interested in hCite: I want to define a new field URL to denote an http URL that points to the location of a copy of the cited work. URIs that encode an identifier of the work can be combined with this field, but do not need to be. I understand that the name URL may overlap a bit with URI, and something like downloadlink, etc. might be more direct, but I argue that URL is the better choice because it is the most common name already in use in our examples from the web. Can we discuss this revised version of the proposal (or just vote on it?) Thanks, -mike ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss -- Michael McCracken UCSD CSE PhD Candidate research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/ misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] species microformats OpenSearch
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes my forum (http://canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t= 118) It appears that Davis has now wiped the discussion of microformats from the forum on his website! -- 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
Re: [uf-discuss] species microformats OpenSearch
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shorthouse, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes my forum (http://canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t= 118) It appears that David has now wiped the discussion of microformats from the forum on his website! It's cached here: http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:ao83KPzUMGIJ:canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/forum/viewtopic.php%3Ft%3D118%26sid%3D711c2796371cee4f6a4c12be 0577d4df+microformats+site:http://canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/forum/hl=engl=ukct=clnkcd=1 (aka http://tinyurl.com/y6wlsw ) and I gave a copy saved should anyone need it once that's flushed. -- 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
[uf-discuss] species microformats: a penultimate reprise
Andy et al., I temporarily subscribed to this listserv once again to: 1) apologize for allowing my emotions get in the way of what can be a fantastic solution to a very difficult problem and, 2) offer advice to take your proposed species microformats to the next level of resilience in the face of taxonomic uncertainties. Apologize to subscribers of this listserv that the repartee Andy and I have been locked in has done little to realize your ultimate goal. Some background about myself: I am a Ph.D. student working on spider biodiversity and systematics. As an out-of-pocket initiative, I developed The Nearctic Spider Database and associated websites including a forum, which is devoted to spider-related research and is used by school children, educators, and researchers. Curators and collectors throughout North America contribute to the database and I also host peer-reviewed species pages. I am one of the first in this field to embrace Web 2.0 as a means to coordinate much of the input and output functions (e.g. Google Maps, Rico LiveGrid, etc.). #1 I welcome all manner of simplifying and diversifying web resources. The Semantic Web, though at a very distant spot on the horizon, provides an interesting direction to work toward. OpenSearch has some promise and I have adopted that. 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). 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. But, there is a responsibility here to do it right. 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? 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 am well familiar with your proposal since it was first brought to my attention on the forum I maintain. However, I would have appreciated being contacted directly about it rather than seeing it in an arachnologists' forum. Species microformats have nothing directly to do with spider research and identification in their present level of acceptance and adoption. They are at this stage a web developer's tool with future client possibilities. 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. 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. #2 Now, for those of you who have slogged through the above waiting for something useful to microformat development, I have these things to write. 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. 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. I also urge you to participate in organizations like TDWG and bring your arguments to the table use language and patience that systematists biodiversity database managers will appreciate. 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. 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. So, you absolutely must be more congenial to encourage the adoption and ultimate success of your initiative. There is simply no other way for your proposal to succeed. Cheers, David P. Shorthouse ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org
Re: [uf-discuss] species microformats: a penultimate reprise
On Dec 7, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Shorthouse, David wrote: 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. I appreciate your attempts to offer constructive feedback. I hope this community will prove more receptive to such feedback in the future, even - perhaps especially - when it is disagreeable. If you know of any examples of such GUIDs being published in HTML, I would encourage you to add them to the wiki: http://microformats.org/wiki/species-examples Without such examples, this isn't likely to make it into a microformat, because microformats are based on current publishing rather than future publishing, however likely it may be. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
