data sharing

[Hugh Wilson]

On  3 Dec 98 at 20:56, Don McAllister <mcall at SUPERAJE.COM> wrote:

> Aa bit forgotten in this discussion, is the difference between the ideal and
> real curatorial worlds......

A central element of this 'data sharing' thread involved (I think)
collaboration (data sharing) among primary data repositories
(museums/herbaria) to place specimen data in a position (on the
network) that would expand public utilization.  This, in turn, could
establish a resource niche on the network (using data that are now
buried in cases) that, if used by the public, might garner increased
public support for maintenance and development.

Certainly, if a given collection is poorly curated and laden with
error then it should remain in hiding.  However, our experience with
computerization of several different herbaria has shown that 1) most
specimens carry good and useful data, 2) minimal pre-curation prior
to computerization resolves many problems, and 3) once computerized
the data can be manipulated to enhance both detection and correction
or errors.  However, I am not promoting biodiversity collections as
sources of public disinformation.  But, since most collections are
open to the public and - in theory - available to the public as an
information resource, I just don't see the distinction between bad
data;  hardcopy vs. digital.

> Museum collection data is not the same as a phone book...

This is true - the analogy is limited and pointed toward to need to
express functional info targeted toward a broad base of users in a
concise manner.

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