[uf-discuss] Plants Microformat
scott at randomchaos.com
Fri Mar 24 13:57:28 PST 2006
>> Does a plant become something different depending on
>> whether it is in a garden or being studied by a botanist?
> Yes. It's care changes from how to tend it (water, situation, shade,
> etc.), to how to conserve it (grazing, habitat preservation, etc.). If
> it becomes a piece of timber, its care is about how you season and
Okay. In hcard "fn" means something different if it's being applied
to a company vs. an individual. We leave that to applications to
sort out if they care to.
> In the former case, the care regime is often a matter of opinion,
> than hard fact.
The factual basis of the data doesn't strike me as something we can
expect to formalize in a microformat. Luckily, we don't need to boil
the ocean here.
> Better to have a way of marking up a a species, or
> species-and-subspecies/ cultivar; and allow user agents to fetch care
> info/ conservation/ substance details from a preferred source.
That sounds like an application implementation choice we probably
don't need to consider. If people are publishing plant-related
information that fit general semantic classes (e.g. "care"), we can
apply those classes generally. Where they fit more specific semantic
classes (e.g. "garden water care"), we can apply them more
specifically. If they don't publish them at all, we can not apply
them at all. But microformats are explicitly not "an attempt to get
everyone to change their behavior and rewrite their tools." What is
and is not included in the microformat should be derived from what is
found in the examples, which Mark appears to be doing a good job of
More information about the microformats-discuss