[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:


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