[piw] Schema again
webmaster at pfaf.org
Sun Apr 17 11:10:42 EDT 2005
Afew thoughts on schema, specifically how we divide up
the information about plants. Sort of inspired by ideas on Folksonomies,
and a piece I read discussing informal/foraml specs.
Basically we can divide info into two main groups
- those for which there is a well established formal/informal spec
e.g. botanical names
- those for which there is no good spec
most of what we have
How we organise data depends on which group things lie in.
Formal entries: in just makes sense to use a scheme close to formal
spec, or easily convertable to formal spec.
Informal entries: use a folksomies structure where users can create
their own headings/catagories. We do not impose our own incomplete
ontologies (clasification system) onto these.
Stuff to go in formal spec: (just the spec for these not the actual data)
Common Names - whilsts informal, this is such a recuring theme
Locilisation - Countries/Country codes/Lat-Long
Very accepted spec for country code.
Book references - generally accepted schemes for citation
Web references - URL - Title
Plant uses - there can be a great many diferent plant uses
do we wish to restrict our users to just those, we put
in or do we allow users to create their own?
Habitats - Also a great many
Division of page into sections - whilst we have some good section
definitions (Edible Uses/Medicinal Uses/Cultivation details/...)
I can see a need where many other setion might be required.
For example a user might want to divide cultivation/propagation into
stratification - stimulation of seeds
Also other major headings
where to get seeds
I don't think its wise to restrict the type of sections allowable.
Other things I'm not sure how to place
Mainly plant properties such as height, flowering times
Probably in the formal spec bit.
Could potentually allow users to add a property.
More information about the piw