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

[Andy Mabbett]

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
>with.

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>