In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On 1/30/07, Charles Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm very interested in the Species microformat, but the process seems >> to have stalled and I just wanted to poll opinion here as to why that >> might be. Is it due to a lack of demand? > >Charles, I don't know about demand, but I do know that many people >have stepped up to participate in gathering research and analysis for >species. Virtually all of them have been taxonomists, drawn in especially to discuss this issue. > Many of them have also been driven away. There's no way that you can substantiate that false assertion. >To be honest, the >use case for the species microformat is a little bit weak. In what way do you think it could be weak? What information do you think is lacking? >It could >be that if there is a lack of demand, it is due to the weak use case >and the gap between the research and the proposal. In what way do you feel there is a gap between the research and the proposal? How do you fee that the two could be more closely linked? >(The use case >essentially describes a hyperlinking behaviour that is already present >and used on many sites.) Such as? >This is just my own opinion though. > >> It seems that the successful >> microformats have been developed, in the main, by web designers and >> developers for web designers and developers. Could it be that web >> designers and developers of the microformats community do not perceive >> the value of a species microformat in the same way that they can see >> the value of, say, hCard, hReview, XFN, etc. The more successful >> microformats seem to be riding on the back of the "social web" >> zeitgeist, with many (most?) being used in this kind of context. I >> don't see species as being of particular interest to the bloggers and >> the other social-networking, mashup-making, digerati of current times. >> Is appealing to this demographic the key in getting a microformat >> developed? I'd appreciate the view of people in this community. >> > >If I think I know what you mean here, I disagree a bit. Who, what, >when, how, where are all answered by these microformats. They are >extremely common, and are probably the first data types to be >represented by any new technology. For example: how old is the >calendar compared to taxonomy? I'll wager that people named plants and animals long before they ever had a concept of hours or months, let alone started recording dates or keeping diaries. >hcard describes "who", xfn describes >"how are they related", hcalendar describes "when".... Again, this is >my own opinion, and I don't have any evidence. [...] >I do think the kind of path vcard >took is qualitatively different than the one species is taking. How so? >> The vocabulary in the proposal isn't plucked out of >> thin-air, though; it is taken from the taxonomic hierarchy as used by >> biologists. It seems to be modelled on hCard in this respect, hence my >> cowpaths question. My own feeling is that the current proposal is too >> complex. The current usage patterns as far as I can see (in the >> majority of cases) either have species names as plain text or >> marked-up with simple <strong> tags, or <em> or <i>. However, I'm not >> adverse to having a rich vocabulary of class names to call on should I >> need them (which 9 times out of 10 I won't), as long as a species name >> can still be marked-up very simply. This is similar to the way in >> which hCard has a rich vocabulary, but can still be very simple. >> > >Charles, this is a great analysis. This matches my observings, at ><http://microformats.org/wiki/species-examples-regrouped>. I think >the format would benefit greatly from taking a fresh look at the >examples collected. It look to me like there should be two pieces. >One should be the way authors mention species in text, the other >should be how authoritative sources represent the information about a >species. In any case, the first behaviour can be accomplished, >perhaps entirely, by using tagging techniques. I strongly disagree with that latter assertion; but please feel free to convince me - and everyone else - with examples. If you do, please bear in mind the mooted extension as a "record" or "sighting" format for combining a species name, with a place, date and individual's details (age, sex, etc.) >Perhaps the in-depth >use of unambiguous names can be used by a second format intended for >publishers of the authoritative information. Why would you want to differentiate between two types of publishing? How would you decide where to draw the line? I would also refer people, again to Note 4, on: <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/future/papers/rothenburg-19980412.html> uFs have given us the first three missing items - and were now debating the fourth. -- Andy Mabbett <http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/uFsig/> Welcome to the 28-day week! _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
