Audit trail, was Re: data sharing

[Curtis Clark]

I'm somewhat amused by the conflicting views on audit trails. A standard
herbarium specimen, since it already resides on a sheet of paper, has
always had the capability of an "audit trail", in the form of annotations,
and plant systematists are trained to respect this, by not covering
existing information, and by adding name and date to any new annotation
(these annotations can include far more than just determinations).

It seems inconceivable to me that a curator of a plant collection would
ever permit an annotator to remove an old label. So the absence of an audit
trail on an electronic database *has* to be a technical issue only--no
other argument will wash.

I wonder if this tradition is less well-developed for other types of
collections, and if that might be a part of the disagreement.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Clark         http://www.intranet.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department             Voice: (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University      FAX: (909) 869-4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu