[Taxacom] Language tags for scientific names

Andy Mabbett andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Sun Jun 29 11:24:29 CDT 2008

In message <007401c8d99d$8fac5d70$0401a8c0 at RLPLaptop>, Richard Pyle
<deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> writes

>the real solution (as
>outlined by Jim) seems to me to be getting closer and closer to reality.
>With next-generation uBio-esque tools and services operating within a
>coordinated Global Names Architecture (GNA), itself built upon a thin but
>highly inclusive Global Names Index (GNI), I predict that it will be just as
>easy to mark-up scientific names in electronic documents with pointers to
>resolvable GUIDs as it would be to mark them up with language attributes.
>The hard work for both will be: 1) recognizing it as a taxonomic name; and
>2) sorting out which Code it blongs to. Any tool that can do these two
>things in order to mark it up with appropriate language attributes, will
>soon (via GNA/GNI) be able to go all the way to a GUID tag.

None of which will be of much interest or use to people publishing
taxonomic names on prose pages like the BBC example I cited earlier, and
who wish to indicate that those names shod not be translated.

Perhaps we are in danger of conflating too many disparate issues and

>Maybe we're trying to accommodate feeble browsers and other software that
>consumes electronic documents in order to make some semantic sense of them;
>but these, too, will likely fade into the history books alongside COBAL and
>CP/M.  It seems to me that we're so close now to the brass ring (tagging
>things like scientific names with explicit resolvable identifiers)

At what point did "explicit resolvable identifiers" enter the fray? From
Gregor's original post in this thread, I thought we were discussing

        Scientific names not only [...] as labels of an object, but also
        in comments and other free-form text.

Andy Mabbett

More information about the Taxacom mailing list