In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> .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? >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>. I thought you gave up part way through doing that? >Most of the useful examples "useful" in what way? >look similar to one of the sites you mentioned: ><a > href="/data/spiders/14441" > onMouseOver="window.status='';return true" > title='Click for species description'> > <i>Aculepeira 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. I dispute that that's the case. >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. What "market"? -- 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
