Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
Thanks for all of your comments. My current take is this: - I will be continuing to develop this format using suggested route. - I will be following this group and contributing if approriate (I think microformats is a good solution to a real problem). - I will ask this group periodically for advice on any issues I may encounter. - I am working on a project which would benefit from a plants microformat, so I may well make a real-world example. Two final points: - I don't actually agree so much on making a microformat too generic. It can actually detract from the usefulness of the content. I would rather err on the side of too much information rather than not enough. - I think if the microformat really becomes the machine readable face of the web, then the total number and usage of niche microformats could exceed the usage of the popular microformats. I can see though that this would be difficult to handle at a standards level. Best Regards, Mark Gibbons ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
On 3/23/06, Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same vein as classification of plants, we might want to explore making a simple microformat that mimics the classification system of the taxonomy of organizims. Kingdom-Phylum-...Family-Species. That way additional microformats (such as this plant idea) can use something like abbr title=homosapien class=speciesHuman/abbr to uniquely identify data that can be cross-references in different databases. I would second the potential usefulness of this. I run a site that deals with all kinds of species names - mammals, insects, single-cells, plants. These are taken and derefenced from large taxonomies such as ITIS and the NCBI Taxonomy, which we use to keep our own application internally consistent. It would be very helpful to have a common way to specify just a few taxonomic fields - common name, latin name, etc. We could then crawl and aggregate from diverse sites with potentially consistent results in third-party apps. If that might shrink the scope of the work on plants, even better. (Noting, also, the taxonomic meaning of class...) As for demarcating identifiers, the unAPI specification defines its own span w/class='unapi-uri', the full identifier in the title attribute value, and a human-readable form in the span text content, mimicking the abbr pattern previously suggested and used here. -- C. Hudley We Know The Truth, Inc. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], mark gibbons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I am developing a microformat proposal for plants. What do you mean by plants? Garden plants? Plants as studied by botanists? Plant-material, such as cut flowers, or planks of timber? -- 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] Plants Microformat
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Suda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes title=homosapien ITYM Homo sapiens (two words, capital H, closing s) -- 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] Plants Microformat
On Mar 24, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: What do you mean by plants? Garden plants? Plants as studied by botanists? Plant-material, such as cut flowers, or planks of timber? Is there really any ambiguity here? The former two are the same thing, no? Does a plant become something different depending on whether it is in a garden or being studied by a botanist? It still has the same latin name, water needs, sunlight needs, etc. And I think it's obvious from the wiki page that planks of timber are outside the scope here. Do we need to clarify that we're not talking about plastic plants or photos of plants also? Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
On Mar 24, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Scott Reynen wrote: On Mar 24, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: What do you mean by plants? Garden plants? Plants as studied by botanists? Plant-material, such as cut flowers, or planks of timber? Is there really any ambiguity here? The former two are the same thing, no? Does a plant become something different depending on whether it is in a garden or being studied by a botanist? Well, to be fair there is distinction between species that are studied by botanists, and varieties sold by garden supplies people (which are often effectively clones), but I think that is something that can be worked out in the process. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
Breton Blake Slivka wrote... However, a species classification microformat would fit right in with the other broadly applicable microformats on microformats.org. Indeed. Creating a more generalized microformat, that can be specifically applied to plants, seems like a pretty good idea. This would allow for easier reuse of the format (in the same way that hCard is getting heavily reused). Of course, all of the examples are specific to plants, so using existing work here would result in something heavily plant biased. And, as Scott pointed out, his goals do fit with microformat's principles. I think the best we could hope for is carefully selecting classes and structures for plants, that could most easily be translated to other classes of life. Atamido ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes What do you mean by plants? Garden plants? Plants as studied by botanists? Plant-material, such as cut flowers, or planks of timber? Is there really any ambiguity here? The former two are the same thing, no? Does a plant become something different depending on whether it is in a garden or being studied by a botanist? Yes. It's care changes from how to tend it (water, situation, shade, etc.), to how to conserve it (grazing, habitat preservation, etc.). If it becomes a piece of timber, its care is about how you season and store it. In the former case, the care regime is often a matter of opinion, rather than hard fact. Better to have a way of marking up a a species, or species-and-subspecies/ cultivar; and allow user agents to fetch care info/ conservation/ substance details from a preferred source. It still has the same latin name No, it has a scientific name. Do we need to clarify that we're not talking about plastic plants or photos of plants also? Is that really the level of debate, here? -- 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] Plants Microformat
On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Do we need to clarify that we're not talking about plastic plants or photos of plants also? Is that really the level of debate, here? Alright, let's slow down a bit here. I've so far stayed out of the discussion about a plant microformat, mostly because I don't really care about talking about plants on the Web. Let's take a step back and think about whether a microformat for plants is worthwhile– Microformats are solutions to common problems, which means they often end up being low hanging fruit. That doesn't mean, however, that all low-hanging-fruit is a common problem and a worthwhile effort the community to undertake. I understand that there are some people, for whom, plants are an important part of the Web for them. But, for me (and I suspect many others), there are a hundred more important things to work on. We already have a number of microformats, in many states of completeness. I'm going to focus my energy on those– building tools and test cases for them, explaining them to people and building consensus around them. I can't speak for others' time, but mine needs to be spent on more pressing matters. And I could use help on them. Lots of help. (hint, hint, nudge, nudge) Also, on a related note, we need to be very careful about creating new microformats– remember microformats are not appropriate for every use case. -ryan ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
Mark, Good job starting, but you will want to make your examples a little more descriptive. For instance, not just listing the types of information on a site, but how that information is displayed. img src=/graphics/icons/DBluFore_AspSun.gif alt=Sunshine Levels - Sunfont class=ForeLobetc. Also, you want to list what/how information for each site. Refer to the http://microformats.org/wiki/review-examples page for examples. Atamido mark gibbons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I am developing a microformat proposal for plants. Please take a look and join in if you wish. http://microformats.org/wiki/plant-examples Mark Gibbons ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
On Mar 24, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Ryan King wrote: Let's take a step back and think about whether a microformat for plants is worthwhile– Microformats are solutions to common problems, which means they often end up being low hanging fruit. That doesn't mean, however, that all low-hanging-fruit is a common problem and a worthwhile effort the community to undertake. As someone who cares about microformats and has fruit trees, I would like to point out that the low-hanging fruit ripens last, so if you're picking that, you likely need to get some help and pick the whole tree, and make some jam. (Not sure if that helps with either discussion, but it is Friday afternoon) ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
Skipping back a few posts... On 3/23/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Breton Blake Slivka wrote: My thought is that it's a very specific microformat, which sort of bucks the trend of very broadly applicable microformats thus far defined and set as official specifications on microformats.org. First two microformat principles: * solve a specific problem * start as simple as possible This looks to me like a good candidate for a microformat, generally in line with both the principles and the process. I agree that a plant microformat fits the principles -- sure, we're humans and care about hCards first, but why not hPlant? Regardless, it's up to Mark to actually undertake this work on the wiki -- so long as he follows the existing practices and principles, I don't see any detriment to the community for niche formats to crop up, especially when they introduce new or interesting challenges for using hypertext to consistently store and represent complex sets of data. So reading over this thread, I had the following Ah has (most are obvious, but they seem useful in this conversation): * Microformats provide a means for transferring data between lowest-common-denominator clients (i.e. web browsers). * Microformats ought be simple, memorable and modular; they should also be content agnostic. Therefore, so long as there are plausible use cases and enough behavior to study, content should not be a deciding factor about whether a microformat ought be investigated or not. * Lastly, the goal of any microformats should also be designed to identify data outside of its original context. For example, marking up a birthday with the appropriate hCard classes is meaningless without an FN (this is represented in a format's rules). Therefore, it is interesting to approach the design or investigation of a microformat from the data-identification standpoint (i.e. what is this data that I'm looking at now that it's a new context?). Anyway, as I said, these things may be obvious, but they further helped me realize that microformats are not about content and should not avoid nichefication. Microformats are about sharing data between sources -- using conventional and highly available tools. Ok, I'm done. Carry on! Chris ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Ryan King wrote: I've so far stayed out of the discussion about a plant microformat, mostly because I don't really care about talking about plants on the Web. Let's take a step back and think about whether a microformat for plants is worthwhile– We should probably step back a bit further and welcome Mark to the list before we go on telling him how much we don't care about what he's working on, and what he's doing wrong. Welcome to the list Mark! I don't personally care about plants, but I think you need more examples. I worry our efforts to point out problems on this list too often counter-act our efforts to promote interest in microformats elsewhere. My first response to Mark's idea what to point out a problem. I now regret that. Peace, Scott___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
On Mar 23, 2006, at 7:20 AM, mark gibbons wrote: Hi, I am developing a microformat proposal for plants. Please take a look and join in if you wish. http://microformats.org/wiki/plant-examples I don't understand what problem this microformat would solve. The stated problem seems to be basically there's no microformat, which doesn't really explain why there should be. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
Hi, I don't understand what problem this microformat would solve. The stated problem seems to be basically there's no microformat, which doesn't really explain why there should be. Thanks for the reply Scott. I would be the first to admit it is a niche, but here would be a few scenarios where I can see this as useful. - Collection of distributed plant information from the web into larger plant databases. - Plant catalogs can be published by retailers and the information about what can be bought where, can be easily aggregated. - Building up personal catalogs of plants, so I can have a customized view on my own plants that I grow, telling me more about them. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:12 AM, mark gibbons wrote: I would be the first to admit it is a niche, but here would be a few scenarios where I can see this as useful. - Collection of distributed plant information from the web into larger plant databases. - Plant catalogs can be published by retailers and the information about what can be bought where, can be easily aggregated. - Building up personal catalogs of plants, so I can have a customized view on my own plants that I grow, telling me more about them. Sounds good. This might have some overlap with the discussed product microformat, but it doesn't have the major problem of identification with the latin terms acting as unique IDs. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Paul Bryson wrote: but it doesn't have the major problem of identification with the latin terms acting as unique IDs. Is there any page that discusses the potential issues of using IDs in microformats? Oh, I didn't mean ID attributes - just something to uniquely identify plants. All plants have a unique latin name, so if two people discuss the same plant, it's easy to identify that they're both the same. It's much more complicated with products, because different systems use different identifiers (bar codes, serial numbers, ISBN, VIN, etc.), which can overlap. It's clear what span class=latin- nameErysimum Cheiri/span means because there is only one Erysimum Cheiri in the plant world. It's less clear what span class=idQ7639R087/span means, because the meaning is very dependent on context. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
I'm not a botanist, so i don't know all the intricacy of plants, but as with all new microformats it is suggested that you get examples from other sites and how they describe plants. These means that you will need to collect what properties other sites use such as, TYPE, WEATHER, WATER, AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT, etc. Then you will need to also get HOW they describe each attribute, for example AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT, is this it in hours, seasons, is it shade no shade direct sun, etc? That should be your first task. If you can't find any data online, then it begs the question of usefulness, but I don't want to discourage you from looking. The nice thing about microformats is that we can constantly iterate. We don't need to sit for years to make a perfect system no one uses, we want to look at how the community at large is working and try to make things easier for already published data. In the same vein as classification of plants, we might want to explore making a simple microformat that mimics the classification system of the taxonomy of organizims. Kingdom-Phylum-...Family-Species. That way additional microformats (such as this plant idea) can use something like abbr title=homosapien class=speciesHuman/abbr to uniquely identify data that can be cross-references in different databases. Any thoughts? -brian On 3/23/06, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Paul Bryson wrote: but it doesn't have the major problem of identification with the latin terms acting as unique IDs. Is there any page that discusses the potential issues of using IDs in microformats? Oh, I didn't mean ID attributes - just something to uniquely identify plants. All plants have a unique latin name, so if two people discuss the same plant, it's easy to identify that they're both the same. It's much more complicated with products, because different systems use different identifiers (bar codes, serial numbers, ISBN, VIN, etc.), which can overlap. It's clear what span class=latin- nameErysimum Cheiri/span means because there is only one Erysimum Cheiri in the plant world. It's less clear what span class=idQ7639R087/span means, because the meaning is very dependent on context. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss -- brian suda http://suda.co.uk ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
Brian, if you look at the wiki, it would seem that he already has done much of what you list. I'm with you so far as defining the simpler microformat first for the Latin classification system. My thought is that it's a very specific microformat, which sort of bucks the trend of very broadly applicable microformats thus far defined and set as official specifications on microformats.org. My suggestion is, a plant microformat does not necessarily require the endorsement of microformats.org. If one desires to propose a new format for something, it is much easier to build support if there are already tools available which can make use of it. That is, make the plant information aggregator *first*, /then/ market the format. This is part of the reason why I believe hCalendar and hCard have gained such wide adoption, as there is already x2v, the relevant creator applets, and the wide range of existing applications which could already make use of vcard and icalendar files produced from x2v. However, a species classification microformat would fit right in with the other broadly applicable microformats on microformats.org. Brian Suda wrote: I'm not a botanist, so i don't know all the intricacy of plants, but as with all new microformats it is suggested that you get examples from other sites and how they describe plants. These means that you will need to collect what properties other sites use such as, TYPE, WEATHER, WATER, AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT, etc. Then you will need to also get HOW they describe each attribute, for example AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT, is this it in hours, seasons, is it shade no shade direct sun, etc? That should be your first task. If you can't find any data online, then it begs the question of usefulness, but I don't want to discourage you from looking. The nice thing about microformats is that we can constantly iterate. We don't need to sit for years to make a perfect system no one uses, we want to look at how the community at large is working and try to make things easier for already published data. In the same vein as classification of plants, we might want to explore making a simple microformat that mimics the classification system of the taxonomy of organizims. Kingdom-Phylum-...Family-Species. That way additional microformats (such as this plant idea) can use something like abbr title=homosapien class=speciesHuman/abbr to uniquely identify data that can be cross-references in different databases. Any thoughts? -brian ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Breton Blake Slivka wrote: Brian, if you look at the wiki, it would seem that he already has done much of what you list. I'm with you so far as defining the simpler microformat first for the Latin classification system. My thought is that it's a very specific microformat, which sort of bucks the trend of very broadly applicable microformats thus far defined and set as official specifications on microformats.org. First two microformat principles: * solve a specific problem * start as simple as possible http://microformats.org/about/ This looks to me like a good candidate for a microformat, generally in line with both the principles and the process. Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
