In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shorthouse, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>[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. I don't think the above makes any sense. >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. and could again be interrogated by a user agent/ tool which took a marked-up binomial and passed it to the relevant search page. >* 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. Quite. And that's what the current proposal addresses. >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. The current proposal provides a means for a user agent/ tool to programmatically tap into such data. -- 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
