- From: Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:45:41 +0100
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
As mentioned on the old schema.org mailing list some time ago, I intend to do some work on the draft 'species' microformat which I authored <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microformats/Species> [1] (already used by the BBC, Wikipedia and others) for the names of living things, and to make it available also as a schema.org extension. Clealrly, there should be a 1-1 relationship and common terms used. There are two issues about which I'm currently undecided: * Should there continue to be one top-level property, currently "biota", or one for each kingdom ("plant", "animal", "fungus" "bacterium", "virus" - note that these are not always clear-cut distinctions: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incertae_sedis>; <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)>) * Should the properties continue to use English names such as "kingdom", "order", "family" etc, or latin "regnum", "ordo", "familia"? Though I do tend strongly towards not changing things for the sake of it, I'm open to cogent arguments for doing so. Then there are some proposed areas which have not yet been developed, or not deployed, such as hybrids and commercial cultivars, GUIDs, authority, etc. Does anyone have any views? Is there any similar work underway elsewhere? I intend to canvass views, elsewhere, from taxonomists and other biologists, whose buy-in I see as essential. [1] See also earlier work at <http://microformats.org/wiki/species-strawman-01>, although that page is no longer maintained; and uses the top-level of "species", which was deprecated in favour of "biota". -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2011 20:46:51 UTC