data sharing

[Hugh Wilson]

This issue of data sharing is, in my view, not relevant for
institutions operating with public support in that the public has a
full right to the info.  Access constraints imposed by collections
managers produces obvious ethical or legal problems.

Its also clear that local digital retardation by collections
managers will be countered by active organizations that are willing
and able to computerize a valuable resource.  However, if
self-appointed federal or commercial 'centers' move to 'harvest'
collections data they will be gathering *dated* data.  If the
collection is not curated then the harvested product is identical to
the original.  However,  most collections *are* curated and this
usually involves nomenclatural updates and error correction.  Thus,
if curatorial changes are reflected by revision of digital data, then
those inclined to extract collections data will be using dated data.
Some ("government work") might be willing to follow this path but
most users will want a fully updated and corrected set of info.

The multi-herbarium specimen browser system at:

http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/tracy/hsb.html

is an example.  Base data for this rests in databases maintained by
several herbaria and these are under constant revision with regard to
both record addition and edits on current records.  The merged array,
representing over 100k specimens, is available on the web via this
system and individual data sets are also available for download as
delimited ASCII at:

http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/output/outputa.html

These downloadable files are replaced each time we update the system
and, as a result, new files differ from the old files in terms of
both nomenclature and error content.  So, it seems to me that this
element of dynamic data sets places those responsible for the primary
information in a strong position IF* current* data are made available
for those with an interest *and* both collections and databases are
actively curated.


On  2 Dec 98 at 17:38, someone wrote:

> >development by a small, self-proclaimed 'center'.  Those involved
> >with stewardship of base data - specimens - will, I think, increase
> >the value of both specimens and support for curation/collection IF
> >data associated with collections is made available to anyone with an
> >interest.
>
> Some of us have already felt the heat that you believe won't happen.  The
> Nature Conservancy's Heritage program collected specimen data from museums
> ...and then lobbied Congress to use their data rather than from
> museums (for a modest fee, of course). TNC was trying (almost successfully)
> to cut us out of the loop and would have made "our" data obsolete.
> Considering current funding problems with museums, that did **not** sit well.
> How do we justify the expense of maintaining our specimens and databases if
> users are going to TNC for the stuff?


Hugh D. Wilson
Texas A&M University - Biology
h-wilson at tamu.edu (409-845-3354)
http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilson/homepage.html