[uf-discuss] species microformats & OpenSearch

[Shorthouse, David]

>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?

[David Shorthouse wrote:] 
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18671685&postID=116507514354753306


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.
[David Shorthouse wrote:] 
Which are?

>This in my opinion is the way to go with microformats.

What, specifically is?
[David Shorthouse wrote:] 
Linking microformats with a system to track nomenclature like LSIDs & thus
elevate the "human-readable" aspect of these to something more
programmatically & taxonomically useful.

>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. 
[David Shorthouse wrote:] 
And this gets me on-board & supportive of microformats how?

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?
[David Shorthouse wrote:] 
It doesn't. I don't follow your question. How do microformats do that? LSIDs
CAN.

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".
[David Shorthouse wrote:] 
These are rather trivial examples.

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.
[David Shorthouse wrote:] 
Sounds like microformats to the majority of species page providers in
museums & other institutions.

>(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.
[David Shorthouse wrote:] 
So should I bother marking-up my species pages now or wait until there is
evidence that they are actually being used in a taxonomically rigorous
manner?