[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Nomenclature- It is to laugh
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Date: zondag 18 oktober 1998 9:01
Subject: Re: Nomenclature- It is to laugh
>I guess when one has lived with this stuff for a few decades, it's just
>nature. But nomenclature is actually quite straightforward, even
>>rational(!)<. The irrational and complicated parts come in when users
>stick to the rules.
Right. The fact that I'm often baffled (at first) by the (correct) use of
this terminology is just that I don't work extensively with it myself
(dinosaurs are not my field, however much I would have liked them to be and
in a way still would like them to be or become). As a computer scientist,
the rational and rulelike structure of these namings actually seems very
appealing to me somehow.
Almost undoubtably it would be possible (and not even all too difficult) to
write a program that would perfectly interpret these names using all the
official rules (and perhaps some not too large database of valid base names
like clades and stuff, and some basic rules of Latin maybe?). Perhaps this
might even be a nice idea for a program for me to write in my spare time, if
only I had any spare time...
Sounds like a nice and potentially very useful tool for dino-workers and
dino-interested laymen everywhere. All kinds of uses spring to mind, from
verifying your own use of the terminology (imagine a spell-checker that
shows what the name boils down to, asking you if this is what you meant?
;-)) to looking up what the #$#@$# the author means exactly, given that
he/she uses the terminology correctly of course.
Any other programmers out there? With spare time on their hands...?
Compass Interactive / NedStat
www.nedstat.nl / www.sitestat.com