[uf-discuss] species microformats & OpenSearch
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wed Dec 6 10:51:37 PST 2006
In message <002501c71906$33104170$9930c450$@ca>, "Shorthouse, David"
<dps1 at ualberta.ca> 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
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://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
>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
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
Birds seen from HMS Beagle included Diomedea exulans
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.
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
More information about the microformats-discuss