Re: [edict-jmdict] Policy on names

[Jean-Luc Léger <reiga@****************>]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:49:56 +1000, Jim Breen <jimbreen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 July 2010 12:58, René Malenfant <rene_malenfant@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> 
>> If more information than {taxon} is desired, i think the best option is
>> to go with: {animal}, {fungus},
>> {protist}, {plant}, {archaean}, {bacteria}. Those classifications are
>> helpful and they aren't liable to change any time soon, regardless of
>> which of the six you consider to be "kingdoms".
>> But then the question remains open about what to do with
>> higher-than-kingdom taxa.
> 
> I took fright a bit at protist and archaean, but I doubt we'd have a lot
> of entries tagged thus.
> 
> I guess I'm leaning towards just {taxon}, and where it needs a bit
> more amplification, this can happen in the gloss, which is what's
> happening now.

I would be happier with both {taxon} (not sure in which tag)
and {animal}, {plant} ..., as a <field> tag.

Those field tags will also be used to mark words like : root, flower,
branch, pistil, pollen ...
or even general terms like : cat, dog, tree ..., which are not exactly
taxons.

Thinking while I am writing, maybe {taxon} could be a more generic term
and be used to mark periodic elements (Hydrogen, Oxygen, ..)
Those would be in the {chem} field.

 JL