[uf-discuss] species questions; process: examples questions
Andy Mabbett
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Mon Oct 23 12:01:18 PDT 2006
In message
<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.
Partially that.
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:
<http://names.ubio.org/browser/classifications.php?conceptID=2463046>
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!):
[1] Those which publish a full or partial hierarchy, like the above.
[2] 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.
[3] These which publish common names, but would be interested in
"aliening" those to the equivalent binominal (etc., as in [2]
Interestingly, some sites (Wikipedia, for example) have pages which fall
into each of the three categories!
I'll add those categories to the 'wiki'.
--
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