Talk:Biositemap

Capitalization

What is the correct usage — "Biositemap" or "biositemap"? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles I have read (admittedly only a few over the last 24 hours) have all had it as Biositemap – as a name rather than a description. I suppose the nearest is Windows which is the name of the software and Biositemap the name of that type of map (it looks better than biological sitemap and I imagine they would copyright the name as there are so many other systems out there doing various IT functions in the field of biotechnology such as OWL and OBO

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, all occurances in article should be in the same capitalization unless it is used with different meanings. The intro "A Biositemap is a way" really needs clarification, such as, "A Biositemap is a software framework blah blah"—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a software framework though. Rather than saying blah blah the sentence says

"A Biositemap is a way for a biomedical research institution of organisation to show how biological information is distributed throughout their Information Technology systems and networks

The only other option as I was editing it seemed to be maybe change "way" to "map" - but this too would be incorrect as "map" here is the data contained in the biositemap.rdf. The picture, a graphical representation of the map, is not the essence of the map but merely one way of using the information to show the connections.

It is not really an easy topic to pin down

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

May be there is no other way to describe this. My point is you don't say "Driving is a way a person operates a land vehicle.", you establish "Driving is the controlled operation of a land vehicle". "way" is a very washy term, and there is almost always a way to simplify and better present the meaning the meaning can almost always be presented simpler and better. Just a copy-editing note on the opening sentence of the article. I only used "software framework" as a general example. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that you are trying to help get the lead into a better state :¬)

It is smoething that I really do not like myself. I had considered several alternatives but as the subject is pretty vague and the actual name Biositemap is not really about a map it left me at a loss to decide. I read and reread articles on the matter but they themselves were pretty vague :¬(

As always it will probably become more clear over time as standard methods are set and so the correct phrase can be inserted - for example this one shows that it is "a mechanism" [1] and this has it as "a protocol" with the data proposed in an xml rather than rdf format [2]

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biositemap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730003306/http://biositemaps.ncbcs.org:80/editor/ to http://biositemaps.ncbcs.org/editor/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730003306/http://biositemaps.ncbcs.org:80/editor/ to http://biositemaps.ncbcs.org/editor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)