data sharing

[Hugh Wilson]

This brings to mind recent discussion of the U.S. federal  ITIS
effort that included a list of  'contributors' that are not
referenced at the ITIS website or PR brochures promoting U.S.
federal activities to provide "the first comprehensive, standardized
reference for the scientific names of the flora and fauna of North
America.." (see NBII Access -  the U.S. National Biological
Information Newsletter).

The vascular plant 'standard' expressed at this site was gleaned from
'contributor'  John Kartesz without attribution *and* without his
knowledge or consent.  Given the nature of the data, this sort of
data 'lifting' could also be done by commerical enterprises that
don't have a problem with plagerism.

This effort demonstrates, first of all, that 'value' is determined
on the web by content.  If the content is useful, accurate, and
*current* the site carrying that content will be accessed and the
access rate will - in one way or another - determine value.  The
site's owners can translate that value into some type of 'sponsor'
return, usually advertising banners.  It also demonstrates a dynamic
that, in my view, negates all this academic hand-wringing about open
access to good data.  If you are working with a dead data set then,
yes, you are vulnerable.  However, systematic data - regardless of
source - are constantly changing.  Thus, any effort to 'grab' data
from an unknowing but active source will only produce an outdated
resource in that updates will always be generated the folks that are
really doing the work.  The ITIS 'standard' for vascular plants is,
for instance, an old (1994 I think) version of the BONAP data set.  A
more recent view of this 'standard' can be found at:

http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/b98/check98.htm

On  5 Nov 98 at 14:54, Doug Yanega <dyanega at MONO.ICB.UFMG.BR> wrote:


> in the world? Bear in mind, please, that I personally find the idea of
> having to hoard data objectionable, but I'm not so sure that the point is
> one we can simply wave off for philosophical reasons, given the economic
> reality of things - as Ken says, we are faced with "increasingly precarious
> circumstances", and we might need to consider, as a community, whether we
> may have to start acting a bit more selfish, out of self-preservation

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