[uf-discuss] species questions; process: examples questions

Charles Roper charles.roper at gmail.com
Sun Oct 22 06:55:07 PDT 2006

On 22/10/06, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> All plants are species, and can be scientifically classified as such.
> Not all species are plants-for-sale, requiring a cultivation regime.

A classic example of one of the differences between plants and species
is that of the Potato (Solanum tuberosum). Now, Solanum tuberosum is a
species. Most of the potatos you buy in shops are Solanum tuberosum.
You may have noticed noticed the numerous types of potato you can buy.
These are *varieties*, not species couldn't be accurately marked up
within a species uF. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Varieties

The question is (and this is something Andy and I have been
discussing), should the species microformat become a "biota"
microformat and cover all aspects of naming living things, including
varieties (in the case of potatos, for instance) and breeds (cats and
dogs, for instance)?

What do others think?

> >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?

Tagging as opposed to what? I thought microformats were all about
tagging? In other words, marking up content using (enriched) tags.
Ben, so I can get a better handle on what your concern is, could you
define "tagging".

> >I'm sure the page would benefit from several people pitching in.
> Seconded.

Thirded. :)

Ben, thanks for taking the time to work on this, your input is appreciated.



More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list