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: > ><h1><span class="species urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:2029133">Theridion >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: > ><h1><span class="species">Theridion 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: <h1>Theridion 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 [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
