[uf-discuss] species questions; process: examples questions
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Mon Oct 23 12:01:18 PDT 2006
<b5d3b8c70610230112i6cd98d52g77936da4f7d395bd at mail.gmail.com>, Charles
Roper <charles.roper at gmail.com> writes
> The straw-man is based, I
>believe, not on existing markup practice but on the ideal way of doing
>things (as judged by Andy) based on existing, well founded,
>terminology used in biology.
Firstly, it's not just my judgement, but a combination of that and
advice received from others (including you!).
Secondly, it reflects both the well-founds AND STRICTLY SPECIFIED
terminology used; plus the hierarchical data published on many of the
sites cited, for example:
I think it might be worth stating that there are, perhaps, three types
of publisher of taxonomic information (with all the usual overlaps and
exceptions one finds when generalising so much!):
 Those which publish a full or partial hierarchy, like the above.
 Those which publish a binominal, or a binominal with a
qualifier, like a subspecies, variety, breed, hybridisation -
but still referring to a single type of living thing, with no
higher- level taxonomy.
 These which publish common names, but would be interested in
"aliening" those to the equivalent binominal (etc., as in 
Interestingly, some sites (Wikipedia, for example) have pages which fall
into each of the three categories!
I'll add those categories to the 'wiki'.
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
More information about the microformats-discuss