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

Andy Mabbett andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Sun Oct 22 14:50:16 PDT 2006

In message
<8ad71be30610221421h36afe79ai9923892de211d0c7 at mail.gmail.com>, Benjamin
West <bewest at gmail.com> writes

>> >> It reflects current publishing practice as precisely and completely as
>> >> possible ...
>> >I'm still wondering how it does so.
>> I'm not sure what else I can tell you.
>Perhaps we have different understandings of some words?  We must not
>be sharing some crucial foundational concepts. Allow me to summarize
>from my perspective:
>Me: "How does $x relate to $y."
>You: "It's relates precisely and completely."
>Me: "I didn't mean does it, I mean how does it?"
>You: "Not sure what to tell you."

Apart from the fact that your paraphrasing is tantamount to misquoting;
I've already answered you.

You've also, once again, ignored one of my questions to you:

        Have you [found] a reference to a living thing, in the context
        of biology or taxonomy, which the proposal does not fit?

>Surely we can begin communicating better.  We seem to be talking past
>each other.

Perhaps you could be more clear about what it is you want to know.

>> Have you find a reference to a living thing, in the context of biology
>> or taxonomy, which the proposal does not fit?
>The markup suggested doesn't seem to reflect, to me, any of the
>authoring practices already being used.

What do you mean by "authoring practices"?

>> The structure (which is very flat) is also dictated by the rules of
>> taxonomy.
>I don't mean the structure of domain specific taxonomy information,

Neither do I.

> I
>meant the structure of markup.  The names of taxonomy are already
>provided by science.  I understand that.  I'm specifically talking
>about the structure of markup.

What do you mean by "the structure of the markup"?

>> What analysis would you like?
>> What do you mean by "common publishing behaviours", that isn't already
>> provided in the examples listed?
>I suggest looking at the other *-examples pages, in particular
><http://microformats.org/wiki/review-examples> and
><http://microformats.org/wiki/citation-examples>.  Please take careful
>note of the analysis sections and implied schema sections.

Thank you, I'm already familiar with them.

Are you saying that all you want is a list of attributes? That would
just be a cut-&-paste of the attributes in the straw-man proposal.

>> Oh, and next time you feel the need to accuse me of editing a wiki page
>> "on behalf of another user", kindly check the page history, first. Thank
>> you.
>I was looking at the history, which is what made me curious, to begin

Then I can't understand how you came to be so confused about what
actually happened - it's all there in black & white.

>  As far as accusations go, I'm not sure I've made any

You wrote "...andy is editing the wiki on behalf of charles roper"

Which I, clearly, was not.

Andy Mabbett
                Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>

                Free Our Data:  <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list