[uf-discuss] species questions; process: examples questions
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Sun Oct 22 04:56:55 PDT 2006
In message <8ad71be30610211806v1d0e03a8r99aa15bcd80e34a at mail.gmail.com>,
Benjamin West <bewest at gmail.com> writes
>I noticed a page for plants at
><http://microformats.org/wiki/plant>. This was a little confusing to
>me. Is species insufficient?
Insufficient for what?
Has any work been done on the "plant" proposal, since March? Was there
any support for that proposal, then?
> I guess I don't understand the need for
>both a species and a plant microformat. Would there next be an animal
My crystal ball seems to be on the blink, so I don't know what someone
else might propose in the future, or for what purpose.
Have you seen any proposals for an animal uF?
>However, I did notice that the plant page had some use cases not
>mentioned in species. Will species support the kind of uses and plant
You're comparing chalk and cheese.
All plants are species, and can be scientifically classified as such.
Not all species are plants-for-sale, requiring a cultivation regime.
Perhaps, when you read <http://microformats.org/wiki/species>, you
missed that part which says:
The proposed plant microformat (with care regime, supplier,
etc.), hlisting or hReview (and possibly others) could contain a
scientific name microformat, in the same way that an hCalendar
can contain an hCard.
and when you read <http://microformats.org/wiki/plant> you missed the
part which says:
Proposed scheme for marking up scientific names. If adopted, a
plant microformat (with care regime, supplier, etc.), could
contain a scientific name microformat, in the same way that an
hCalendar can contain an hCard.
> Are there similar intents in the markup listed on the
>examples  page as there are on the plant pages?
No. See above.
>the behaviour of existing publishers should
>imply a schema, which can in turn imply the names of the fields for
Unlike, say, the names of hCard components (nickname, extended-address,
locality, etc.), the names for the components of biological nomenclature
(kingdom, phylum, genus, etc.) are already rigidly defined.
Aside from a few minor issues of non-taxonomical classifications
(commercial sales names, dog breeds) and abbreviations, that work has
already been done for us.
There are plenty of references cited, should you wish to familiarise
yourself with the basic concepts.
> Finally, armed with this knowledge, one can make
>informed suggestions on what a microformat might look like.
We already have an informed suggestion - the "straw-man".
>I'd like to regroup some things... but it's quite a bit of work, so
>for now I've simply started it as an alternative grouping section at
I've moved your work to:
not least because there were warnings about excessive page length.
You also, quite rightly, removed a couple of examples because the pages
were no longer available. In future, if you do so, please will you
substitute an equivalent alternative? Thank you.
>Finally, I will breifly mention that several of the examples I looked
>at (chosen by random clicking) closely resembled the behaviour of
>tagging, to me. Perhaps it would be easier and more effective to
>co-opt this behaviour somehow.
Perhaps you could explain how you think it resembles such behaviour, how
that might be "co-opted", and the advantages, over the proposed uF, that
that might bring? And how it might be applied the vast number of species
listings which are not links?
>I'm sure the page would benefit from several people pitching in.
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
More information about the microformats-discuss