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] 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.
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
Re: [uf-discuss] species microformats OpenSearch
On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:14 AM, Shorthouse, David wrote: To that end, I now make use of uBio LSIDs marked-up species pages with: h1span class=species urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:2029133Theridion agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1 .in the hopes that uBio's and other LSIDs will eventually contribute to the semantic web in a taxonomically intelligent way. This in my opinion is the way to go with microformats. Hi David. Welcome to the list. The above seems to me very unlikely to be adopted by HTML publishers. That LSID URN refers to an RDF resource, and RDF is not intended to be consumed by humans. Microformats are for humans first. Also, the RDF resource lists the canonical name as Theridion agrifoliae, so that alone should be canonically descriptive, right? What exactly is the benefit of repeating this information in the class when it's already in the content? http://names.ubio.org/authority/metadata.php? lsid=urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:2029133 I simply cannot comprehend how something like: h1span class=speciesTheridion agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1 .could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will stand the test of taxonomic revisions (i.e how do the current species microformats deal with synonyms, homonyms, and other recognized nomenclature?). Synonyms and other nomenclature are covered by abbr, e.g.: Along came a abbr title=Theridion agrifoliae class=speciesspider/abbr and sat down beside her. This keeps the more precise version accessible to human readers (unlike class names), without requiring them to read it. Homonyms should be irrelevant to markup, as parsers read only HTML text, not audio. If there are real limitations to the simpler solution, please describe them in more detail. It would be especially helpful if you have content you can try marking up and describe the specific problems you face, to keep away from hypotheticals. But if you're just looking for a more general syntax for these semantics, you may want to just use RDF instead of microformats. We're not trying to mark up everything here - just enough to be useful. Regarding OpenSearch, anyone can return microformat results in OpenSearch format, but I don't know of anyone doing so yet. Technorati and Alexa are both running early microformat aggregators, but the species microformat is just getting started so there's not much to aggregate yet. 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 I am a relative newcomer to microformats and come with a biological sciences background so am most interested in the species microformat group of discussions (http://microformats.org/wiki/species). It's good to have you aboard. Rod Page and I with contributions from Charles Roper have been having an interesting discussion about OpenSearch on his iSpecies (http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/ispecies/) blog (http://ispecies.blogspot.com/) as it relates to The Nearctic Spider Database's use of some software called Zoom Search. I couldn't find that discussion. Can you post specific URL(s), please? Of particular concern to me is: 1) using correct appropriate nomenclature and, 2) providing a means to aggregate the sorts of species pages produced as exemplified by The Nearctic Spider Database (http://canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/data/canada_spiders/). Both of which are allowed BUT NOT ENFORCED by the proposal as it stands. To that end, I now make use of uBio LSIDs marked-up species pages with: h1span class=species urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:2029133Theridion agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1 Your mark-up does not match the current proposal; the name will change from species; the URN in your example is not visible, and you have not (though that's optional) marked up the authority. .in the hopes that uBio's and other LSIDs will eventually contribute to the semantic web in a taxonomically intelligent way. Note that that's a hypothetical future development, which may or may not happen. Microformats are concerned with existing practices. This in my opinion is the way to go with microformats. What, specifically is? I simply cannot comprehend how something like: h1span class=speciesTheridion agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1 .could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way I'm sorry that you cannot see that; and I hope to be able to persuade you otherwise - but note that your lack of comprehension in that regard is not a failing on behalf of the proposal. At the very least, your example conveys more, and more semantic, information than simply: h1Theridion agrifoliae Levi, 1957/h1 will stand the test of taxonomic revisions How does plain text do that? As well as allowing a professional biologist to mark up the sort of thing you deal with, the proposal is intended to allow an author to indicate that in, say: I saw a Blackbird in John's garden or Birds seen from HMS Beagle included Diomedea exulans or We recommend that you buy our Rose 'peace' for your gardens that Blackbird, Diomedea exulans and Rose 'peace' are species, and not garden or Beagle. As Bruce D'Arcus wrote earlier today: in the real practical world out there, people want to describe what they want to describe; not to conform to some limited set of terms that only get agreed to through some tortuous process of which the vast majority of people couldn't be bothered. (i.e how do the current species microformats deal with synonyms, homonyms, and other recognized nomenclature?). I believe this has already been answered; though note that there are no current species microformats, only a proposal for discussion. -- 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
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will stand the test of taxonomic revisions I agree with this. It's unclear to me how the current proposal even relates to the research gathered, and what use cases it might support. Typically, microformat proposals are heavily influenced by the analysis of examples collected. I've tried doing this work at http://microformats.org/wiki/species-examples-regrouped. Most of the useful examples look similar to one of the sites you mentioned: a href=/data/spiders/14441 onMouseOver=window.status='';return true title='Click for species description' iAculepeira carbonarioides/i (Keyserling, 1892) /a Looks to me like most mentions of species don't contain much information about them, but rather link to to another page that does. To me this resembles tagging, where species mentioned is the tag, and the endpoint of the url is the resource representative of the tag. Perhaps with further analysis, we can modify hReview or xFolk to be useful for species, in order to model what is actually happening in the market. Can you: * elaborate on the kinds of use cases you would expect a species microformat to support * confirm whether or not the above model is the most common way of publishing species mentions * collect intances of the authoritative resources and their markup of the species * what is the most commonly published information (on the authoritative end) * how is it represented (on the authoritative end) Ben On 12/5/06, Shorthouse, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, I am a relative newcomer to microformats and come with a biological sciences background so am most interested in the species microformat group of discussions (http://microformats.org/wiki/species). Rod Page and I with contributions from Charles Roper have been having an interesting discussion about OpenSearch on his iSpecies (http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/ispecies/) blog (http://ispecies.blogspot.com/) as it relates to The Nearctic Spider Database's use of some software called Zoom Search. Of particular concern to me is: 1) using correct appropriate nomenclature and, 2) providing a means to aggregate the sorts of species pages produced as exemplified by The Nearctic Spider Database (http://canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/data/canada_spiders/). To that end, I now make use of uBio LSIDs marked-up species pages with: h1span class=species urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:2029133Theridion agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1 .in the hopes that uBio's and other LSIDs will eventually contribute to the semantic web in a taxonomically intelligent way. This in my opinion is the way to go with microformats. I simply cannot comprehend how something like: h1span class=speciesTheridion agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1 .could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will stand the test of taxonomic revisions (i.e how do the current species microformats deal with synonyms, homonyms, and other recognized nomenclature?). Finally, what steps have been taken to aggregate or make use of species microformats and can OpenSearch play some sort of role here in taking the next step? David P. Shorthouse -- Department of Biological Sciences CW-403, Biological Sciences Centre University of Alberta Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9 Phone: 1-780-492-3080 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://canadianarachnology.webhop.net http://arachnidforum.webhop.net -- ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
RE: [uf-discuss] species microformats OpenSearch
.could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will stand the test of taxonomic revisions I agree with this. It's unclear to me how the current proposal even relates to the research gathered, and what use cases it might support. Typically, microformat proposals are heavily influenced by the analysis of examples collected. I've tried doing this work at http://microformats.org/wiki/species-examples-regrouped. Most of the useful examples look similar to one of the sites you mentioned: a href=/data/spiders/14441 onMouseOver=window.status='';return true title='Click for species description' iAculepeira carbonarioides/i (Keyserling, 1892) /a Looks to me like most mentions of species don't contain much information about them, but rather link to to another page that does. To me this resembles tagging, where species mentioned is the tag, and the endpoint of the url is the resource representative of the tag. [David Shorthouse wrote:] Indeed, this is a lot like tagging and are nothing more than links to other species pages in an attempt to permit users a chance to quickly get to information about other species in the same Genus as the one on the currently visible page. Also in a trivial way, this is to permit search engine spiders a chance to navigate the thousands of pages. What is actually more useful from a taxonomic standpoint are the Synonyms and Other Recognized Nomenclature tables on each species page that are the 1:1 mappings of historic nomenclature to that currently recognized. These of course also have LSIDs. Perhaps with further analysis, we can modify hReview or xFolk to be useful for species, in order to model what is actually happening in the market. Can you: * elaborate on the kinds of use cases you would expect a species microformat to support [David Shorthouse wrote:] What I would ultimately hope for is a means to aggregate such species pages across multiple resources. This means some sort of scaffolding that is intelligent enough to know that a species with a microformat for Lycosa fuscula Thorell, 1875 and another for Pardosa fuscula (Thorell, 1875) refer to the very same species. A browser plug-in that found species microformats on the page could highlight these provide something like a floating div to indicate current nomenclature in the event that a tagged name is not the currently recognized name. This would permit one unfamiliar (or familiar) with the species an opportunity to quickly recognize that the provided page may have useful information, but that the nomenclature is dated. * confirm whether or not the above model is the most common way of publishing species mentions [David Shorthouse wrote:] In fact, there is no model. The vast majority of similar species pages have no common ground, no tagging, and are merely free-form text with images. * collect intances of the authoritative resources and their markup of the species * what is the most commonly published information (on the authoritative end) [David Shorthouse wrote:] These would be peer-reviewed publications, most of which are paper-based. The ICZN and other organization have their rule-set for what constitutes a new species name, but there is little in place to programmatically tap into that data, though many organizations are making steps toward that ultimate goal. Speaking about spiders, the authoritative work for their nomenclature is the World Spider Catalog: http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/INTRO1.html, which is essentially an HTML representation of a paper-based publication with no means to programmatically tap into the data. * how is it represented (on the authoritative end) [David Shorthouse wrote:] Unfortunately, I can't speak to that. Ben ___ 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 Rod Page and I with contributions from Charles Roper have been having an interesting discussion about OpenSearch on his iSpecies (http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/ispecies/) blog (http://ispecies.blogspot.com/) as it relates to The Nearctic Spider Database's use of some software called Zoom Search. I couldn't find that discussion. Can you post specific URL(s), please? You didn't write that; I did. [David Shorthouse wrote:] Please use a more standard quoting method, so that it's more apparent what you are saying, and so that what you're quoting doesn't appear to have been written by you. Thank you. If you're a windows user, you may find QuoteRight: http://freestuff.grok.co.uk/quoteright/index.html which is freeware, useful; though I believe that your mail client will support proper quoting by itself. You may also find: http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html informative (section 3 especially) even though it's specifically aimed at uk.* usenet newsgroups. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18671685postID=116507514354753306 Thank you. I see that Charles pointed you at some of the introductory pages about Microformats, which should have allayed some of the concerns and misapprehensions in your original post here. Microformats are concerned with existing practices. [David Shorthouse wrote:] Which are? ...Documented on the *.examples pages. This in my opinion is the way to go with microformats. What, specifically is? [David Shorthouse wrote:] Linking microformats with a system to track nomenclature like LSIDs thus elevate the human-readable aspect of these to something more programmatically taxonomically useful. Then you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what microformats are about. You also appear to give an answer specific to species, when your previous comment was apparently about microformats, plural and general. I simply cannot comprehend how something like: h1span class=speciesTheridion agrifoliae/span Levi, 1957/h1 .could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way I'm sorry that you cannot see that; and I hope to be able to persuade you otherwise - but note that your lack of comprehension in that regard is not a failing on behalf of the proposal. [David Shorthouse wrote:] And this gets me on-board supportive of microformats how? Why would you expect your admitted lack of comprehension to do that? will stand the test of taxonomic revisions How does plain text do that? [David Shorthouse wrote:] It doesn't. I don't follow your question. How do microformats do that? They are not intended to. Why would you suppose otherwise. LSIDs CAN. Indeed. And LSIDs could be marked up, using the current proposal. As well as allowing a professional biologist to mark up the sort of thing you deal with, the proposal is intended to allow an author to indicate that in, say: I saw a Blackbird in John's garden or Birds seen from HMS Beagle included Diomedea exulans or We recommend that you buy our Rose 'peace' for your gardens that Blackbird, Diomedea exulans and Rose 'peace' are species, and not garden or Beagle. [David Shorthouse wrote:] These are rather trivial examples. They are common examples. As Bruce D'Arcus wrote earlier today: in the real practical world out there, people want to describe what they want to describe; not to conform to some limited set of terms that only get agreed to through some tortuous process of which the vast majority of people couldn't be bothered. [David Shorthouse wrote:] Sounds like microformats to the majority of species page providers in museums other institutions. You have spoken to them all?!? In any case, microformats are not just for people in museums and other institutions. (i.e how do the current species microformats deal with synonyms, homonyms, and other recognized nomenclature?). I believe this has already been answered; though note that there are no current species microformats, only a proposal for discussion. [David Shorthouse wrote:] So should I bother marking-up my species pages now or wait until there is evidence that they are actually being used in a taxonomically rigorous manner? Why would you expect them to be used in such a manner? That's not the problem they're intended to solve. -- 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
On Dec 6, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: .could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will stand the test of taxonomic revisions I agree with this. You may well be right - but since dealing with taxonomic revisions is entirely outside the scope of uFs, so what? I think I agree with Andy on this, but I'm finding it difficult to read past what appears to me to be unhelpful hostility. People change names, but hCard doesn't account for this. Publishers are expected to update their hCards when names change, or have invalid hCards, because name changes are an edge case that shouldn't inconvenience publishers in general by making the microformat less clear. Are species name changes any different? 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], Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Dec 6, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: .could ever contribute to the semantic web in a meaningful way will stand the test of taxonomic revisions I agree with this. You may well be right - but since dealing with taxonomic revisions is entirely outside the scope of uFs, so what? I think I agree with Andy on this, but I'm finding it difficult to read past what appears to me to be unhelpful hostility. I'm trying not to let such attitudes get to me. People change names, but hCard doesn't account for this. Publishers are expected to update their hCards when names change, or have invalid hCards, because name changes are an edge case that shouldn't inconvenience publishers in general by making the microformat less clear. Are species name changes any different? Yes; there are definitive web sites which will accept a species' out-of-date binominal name (passed, perhaps, by a user agent/ tool parsing a microformat according to the current proposal) and return the definitive current version (or alternatives where a species has been split into two). There are no equivalents for renamed people. -- 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], Benjamin West [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes What market? Market may have several meanings: * the mindshare of developers * documents on the web * formats to represent data 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' -- 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], Shorthouse, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The advantage of the LSIDs is that they may act as a mapping catalog that is capable of drawing the lines from old names (or even current names that have not been fully accepted) to current nomenclature. Merely using Theridion agrifoliae I would argue is not even enough for humans. What proportion of species references *currently on the web* [1] use an LSID, and what proportion use a binominal or suchlike? Hint: Google finds 105 for Theridion agrifoliae; and *zero* for 3561403 + Theridion agrifoliae Google finds about 504,000 for parus major; and *zero for 384 8440 + parus major Note also that a search for the above boinominals on the uBio website: http://names.ubio.org/browser/search.php returns the relevant LSIDs' one use-case for the microformat would be to find the binominal on a web page, and pass it to uBio, in order to return the LSID. [1] e.g. those at http://microformats.org/wiki/species-examples -- 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
