[Taxacom] Periodical and book list[Scanned]
Paul Kirk
p.kirk at cabi.org
Wed Jan 24 02:22:55 CST 2007
Lets keep it simple and make it work, at least for version 0.1, because
even this would be better than what we have got now ... which is nowt
... ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page
Sent: 24 January 2007 08:11
To: Weitzman, Anna
Cc: Roger Hyam; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Periodical and book list[Scanned]
Isn't the reality that for many taxa, rather few of the papers about
most organisms will be of direct taxonomic relevance? Hence, all you
need is to flag papers that, say, contain the original description of
the name, a re-description, or propose a new synonomy/combination.
Papers that contain the name but are primarily about something else
won't be flagged, and hence users will be quickly able to see what's
relevant (taxonomically). Classifying the content of the rest (i.e., is
it about ecology, distribution, genomics, etc.) is outside the scope. I
also think text searching is likely to be more efficient than excessive
manual tagging for much of this. Google, for all it's faults, does
remarkably well...
On 23 Jan 2007, at 16:51, Weitzman, Anna wrote:
> Rod,
> I freely admit that I, for one, don't know enough about RDF. However,
> from what I do know, I cannot see that it simpler to construct
> metadata in enough detail or create URIs for linking (which are just
> another form of GUID, after all) unless we are working together on the
> 'vocabulary' (whether for metadata or URIs or GUIDs) that allows us to
> do the linking.
>
> Further, for example, unless there is enough context (which can be
> metadata or in the structure of the schema itself, but I suspect more
> likely to be used if in the structure of a schema/data model) about
> whether a name is merely used in passing (as a host, parasite, nearby
> species, etc), fully treated in the work, or used as a synonym, I
> don't see that a list of all the papers that cite a particular
> taxonomic name is terribly helpful, since I -- or worse the
> non-taxonomist who keeps accusing us of producing nothing useful to
> them -- will have to look at each and every citation to see if it
> contains what they need.
>
> Now back to reading up on RDF some more, something I've been promising
> to do for some time now.
>
> Cheers,
> Anna
>
> Anna L. Weitzman, PhD
> ITO-Informatics; Botany and Biodiversity Research
> National Museum of Natural History
> Smithsonian Institution
>
> 202.633.0846
> weitzman at si.edu
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Roderic Page [mailto:r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk]
> Sent: Tue 23-Jan-07 11:09 AM
> To: Weitzman, Anna
> Cc: Roger Hyam; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Periodical and book list
>
>
>
> Is the problem really *this* complicated? There is a danger here that
> the problem is posed in such a way as to make it too hard to solve.
Why
> not keep things as simple as possible? It's also not clear to me what
> you think needs a GUID -- surely not every reference to something
needs
> a GUID?
>
> For example, if a specimen is referred to in a publication, all we
need
> is a statement that specimen 'x' is referred to in paper 'y', where
'x'
> and 'y' are GUIDs (e.g., a DOI for the paper and LSID for the
> specimen). This is not hard to do. I think much of what you list here
> are not instances that need GGUIDs, but the results of queries (e.g.,
> "find me all papers that mention a taxonomic name"). In other words, I
> think we need to clearly distinguish between digital objects (papers,
> figures, specimens, sequences, taxonomic names) and
> combinations/occurrences of those objects.
>
> As for interoperability -- why isn't resolving GUIDs to RDF metadata
> enough?
>
> It just seems that this community seems determined to make things much
> harder than they really need to be...
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Jan 2007, at 14:28, Weitzman, Anna wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger, Rod et al.,
>>
>> We have been following this thread with great interest as it is one
>> near and dear to our own work on standards and interoperable markup
>> for taxonomic literature with TDWG and on taXMLit. The overriding
>> issue as we see it is that of interoperability. Assigning GUIDs in a
>> variety of places for whatever one wants does not appear, to us, as a
>> way to ensure interoperability. GBIF is already running into this in
>> that the same record may appear more than once in its portal, for
>> example, a fish specimen/lot record may have been included by the
>> repository, by FishBase (which also has included the data from the
>> original repository), and by OBIS (for the same reason). To use
these
>> data appropriately we need to know, and be able to count those
records
>> as a single record, currently that is not possible.
>>
>> Roger's most recent examples are correct, but we disagree slightly,
in
>> that both articles and journals *are* cited (though not in the
>> 'microcitations' (* see definition at end) that Roger is referring
to.
>> Further, the issues of the interoperability go *far* beyond those.
>> So not only do we need GUIDs for journals, articles, and pages, the
>> issue for GUIDs that we see goes well beyond that and one that we
>> must deal with sooner rather than later.
>>
>> A page may contain a lot of different things and a number of those
>> things will be given GUIDs elsewhere. So we will need to make sure
>> that we can connect them using GUIDs that are not just created by
each
>> site that uses them, but include some way to allow us to link the
>> correct things together (automatically where possible, but if
>> absolutely necessary--where there are doubts--using expert
>> intervention). The *main* ones or these are (and we apologize for
>> only mentioning Botanical and Zoological examples since we need
>> everything else as well and we count on our colleagues to help us):
>>
>> - every use of a taxonomic name (which is either linked to a concept
>> in TCS or the original concept if that cannot be defined). This
>> includes not only the name being treated, but each and every synonym,
>> misspelling, misuse, and mention in text. Images that may help
define
>> a species concept, lists of characters (and the citation that they
>> came from, see below) that may help define a species concept, or
>> *most* helpfully a list of specimens (see below) that defines the
>> species concept of a particular specialist should also be included
>> here.
>>
>> - every citation of the same article or page ('microcitations'
>> (*definition below) most frequently cite a page (or sometimes more
>> than one page). This is compounded by the fact that a protologue or
a
>> species treatment (that may or may not be a 'new' concept) is
>> recognized and cited in a variety of ways which may or may not cover
>> more than one page. Botanical protologues are generally cited by the
>> first page that they appear on nowadays, but that is certainly not
>> always the case in the past. Further, there are also issues when the
>> elements that define valid publication of names (Bot.) or make names
>> available (Zoo.) span more than one page.
>>
>> - every citation of a specimen (specimen or duplicates (Bot.) from
the
>> same individual) or group individuals of individuals of the same
>> species collected at the same time and place (lot or part of a lot
>> (Zoo.) that is broken up (or duplicates, Bot.) and distributed to
>> multiple collections) which should be linked to one or more specimens
>> in one or more collection repositories around the world. Specimens
>> (or vice versa for us taxonomists) also need to link to molecular
>> sequence and barcode data in GenBank and other similar data
>> repositories worldwide, which raises another set of linkages. Images
>> of specimens (living or dead) should also be included here.
>>
>> - geographic locations and their synonyms, coordinates etc. should
>> link.
>>
>> - individual person's names (whether they are collectors, authors,
>> taxonomic authors in any given context) are also cited, spelled and
>> abbreviated in a variety of ways that need to be linked. Again,
there
>> are partial lists in a variety of different fields (formal ones such
>> as Botany's Authors of Plant Names and Collectors Index and less
>> formal lists that exist in a number of zoological fields) that need
to
>> be brought together and linked. These further need to be linked to
>> collaborator strings that they are included in.
>>
>> - descriptions, phylogenetic character matrices, images of character
>> states.
>>
>> - images (or sounds, videos) and their derivatives (versions whether
>> prints from a negative, modifications or copies of an original
digital
>> or analogue image or tape, etc). This is especially important as
>> repositories such as MorphBank & MorphoBank grow.
>>
>> For the above reasons (and for location and ordering purposes at
>> least), there will be a further need to link elements within a work
to
>> the
>> paragraph that they occur in.
>>
>> In the case of publications, we agree that the first place to start
is
>> with a list of publications (and the many and various variations of
>> their names and abbreviations). This can start with a number of the
>> zoological lists that have been recommended by others as well as BPH
>> (Botanico Periodicum Huntianum) and TL-2 (Taxonomic Literature, ed.
>> 2). However, there is overlap between these lists (even between BPH
>> (Journals) and TL-2 (mostly monographs and other standalone
>> publications, but also important journal articles) in different
fields
>> (Bot./Zoo.) and subfields (several of the fields within zoology have
>> different lists of 'standard' abbreviations that are different for
the
>> same publication). And as Roger stated in his original query, these
>> lists are out of date (by definition, they will always be out of
>> date).
>>
>> That said, we cannot stop there, even for a moment. We need to
expand
>> to a wide variety of things, some of which are less obvious.
>>
>> We use taxonomic literature as a place to say what we know about a
>> huge number of things about the taxa we treat, including natural
>> history, ecology, relationships, conservation and so on. As we build
>> interoperable standards with more data types outside of
>> systematics/taxonomy (as we believe we must do), we need to be
>> prepared to include interoperability with more of these data types.
>>
>> Yes, the GUID issue is complex, but so is taxonomy and to adequately
>> bring it to the online world in a way that will be useful to us and
to
>> our colleagues that need our data in order to solve problems in a
>> variety of fields, we need to address these issues.
>>
>> Finally, we will only mention that for anyone interested in this
>> subject, we hope that you will join us in the TDWG Taxonomic
>> Literature standards interest group, help us review the proposed
>> models/schemata for Taxonomic Literature (especially TaxonX and
>> taXMLit), and formulate ways forward to deal with these questions.
>> For those of you who contact Anna off list about joining, and for
>> those of you who have already join, we assure you that we are about
to
>> revitalize the process and will be in touch quite soon.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Anna Weitzman, convener, TDWG Taxonomic Literature Standards Interest
>> Group, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
>>
>> Chris Lyal, co-convener, TDWG Taxonomic Literature Standards Interest
>> Group, Natural History Museum, London
>>
>> *microcitations are defined as the abbreviated citations that
>> taxonomists use in synonymies.
>>
>> Anna L. Weitzman, PhD
>>
>> ITO-Informatics; Botany and Biodiversity Research
>> National Museum of Natural History
>> Smithsonian Institution
>>
>> 202.633.0846
>> weitzman at si.edu
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Roger Hyam
>> Sent: Tue 23-Jan-07 8:13 AM
>> To: Roderic Page
>> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Periodical and book list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is an example:
>>
>> I receive a reference to a nomenclatural event:
>>
>> Rhododendron molle subsp. japonicum (A.Gray) K. Kron, Edinb. J. Bot.
>> 50(3):279 (1993)
>>
>> My database already contains a reference to:
>>
>> Kron, K.A. (1993) A Revision of Rhododendron Section Pentanthera.
>> Edinburgh Journal of Botany 50(3):249-364
>>
>> For my application to tell me that the first reference is a part of
>> the second reference (and therefore enable me to assert that to
>> others using DublinCore) it needs to know that "Edinb. J. Bot." is
>> the same as "Edinburgh Journal of Botany".
>>
>> A web service (look up table) that would take "Edinb. J. Bot." or
>> "Edinburgh Journal of Botany" and returned the same id would be
>> useful. This gives the datum for the rest of the reference that can
>> be parsed to a location (admittedly linear) within that publication
>> series.
>>
>> The important thing is that the title of the paper "A Revision of
>> Rhododendron Section Pentanthera" and it's identity are irrelevant.
>> We do not need to curate a database containing all the papers in the
>> EJB (oops another abbreviation of the same journal) to specify
>> locations and relate them to each other.
>>
>> If the paper had had a GUID it would not have helped because the
>> first reference does not refer to the paper - only the journal. This
>> is the most common case in my experience of taxonomic literature. It
>> may be different in zoology.
>>
>> The paper is actually part of a series of papers that make up a
>> monograph of Rhododendron that was published over many years between
>> the "Notes from the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh" and its successor
>> "Edinburgh Journal of Botany". I may choose to issue GUIDs for the
>> monograph as a whole and its parts which does not have a contiguous
>> presence in bibliographic space.
>>
>> What I am arguing is that yes everything that appears useful should
>> have a GUID but that some GUIDs are more useful than others and that
>> Journal level service would give a lot of bangs for bucks.
>>
>> Sticking to my geographic simile - The journal GUID is like the datum
>> for a grid reference. Each Volume+Part+Page combination is local to a
>> journal just as a 6 figure UK Ordnance Survey grid reference is local
>> to the area covered by that mapping agency. The only difference is
>> that the geographic datums (that should be data! ed) tend to overlap
>> and this does not occur often in bibliographic space.
>>
>> The SICI numbers seem to be doing something very similar to what I am
>> suggesting. They require a GUID for the serial (an ISSN) plus some
>> fields to define where in the serial the 'thing' occurs. I am just
>> proposing a more semantic web friendly way of doing this that could
>> map directly onto SICI (plus handling publications without ISSNs and
>> providing the abbreviation to GUID look up service and limiting it to
>> the biodiversity domain).
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>> On 23 Jan 2007, at 11:31, Roderic Page wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow this analogy. Surely the relationship between
>>> bibliographic items is a part-whole relationship? An article is
>>> part of an issue, which is part of a journal? A paragraph is part
>>> of an article. The notion of a rather BPS seems a distraction,
>>> especially as bibliographic locations are localised within a
>>> publication (unlike geospatial co-ordinates, which are, literally,
>>> global). Perhaps I'm missing something?
>>>
>>> Regarding discovering part-whole relationships, these can be
>>> easily specified by Dublin Core, and indeed providers such as
>>> Ingenta already use this, such as
>>>
>>> <meta name="DCTERMS.isPartOf" scheme="URI" content="urn:ISSN:
>>> 1063-5157"/>
>>>
>>> embedded in the HTML here: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/
>>> tandf/usyb/2006/00000055/00000003/art00002
>>>
>>> I also think we can simply issue GUIDs for whatever we want, when
>>> we want them, at whatever level is appropriate.
>>>
>>> One topic we haven't pursued is creating identifiers. Perhaps
>>> Serial Item and Contribution Identifiers (SICIs) would be useful.
>>> They are used by JSTOR, for example, and are a NISO standard
>>> (http://www.niso.org/standards/standard_detail.cfm?std_id=530). See
>>> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/bib-man/factfile/standard-numbers/sici/ for
>>> a brief introduction. They might be a useful way to assign
>>> identifiers that could reused in some sense. Put another way,
>>> somebody with a list of references could generate identifiers that
>>> somebody else would make use of, independently of getting the GUID
>>> resolution infrastructure up and running.
>>>
>>> I note that BioOne's DOI's are constructed from SICI, for example
>>>
>>> doi:10.1206/0003-0082(2006)502[0001:NSAFRS]2.0.CO;2
>>>
>>> which is the DOI for
>>>
>>> PRENDINI L (2006) New South African Flat Rock Scorpions
>>> (Liochelidae: Hadogenes). American Museum Novitates: Vol. 3502, No.
>>> 1 pp. 1-32
>>>
>>> 0003-0082 is the ISSN for American Museum Novitates
>>> 2006 is the date (it can be month and day as well)
>>> 502 is the issue number (curiously truncated in this example
>>> 0001 is the starting page
>>> NSAFRS is an abbreviation of the title
>>>
>>>
>>> the rest are codes and checksums. SICI's can incorporate other
>>> information as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Rod
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Jan 2007, at 20:46, Roger Hyam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I replied to Bob's message and forgot to cc the list. Here is a
>>>> very slightly altered version of it which kind of addresses Rod's
>>>> points as well.
>>>>
>>>> I think an open access reference manager system is a good idea. I
>>>> spent some time talking about this with people and consider the
>>>> first step would be to get something going for the top level
>>>> references.
>>>>
>>>> The granularity debate usually follows the line of wanting GUIDs
>>>> for articles and then GUIDs for pages (that have been digitized)
>>>> and how about GUIDs for paragraphs. Nomenclaturists will often
>>>> raise the fact that they need a GUID to point to the paragraph
>>>> containing the protolog or other nomenclatural event when there
>>>> are several on a page. Or there may be a series of 5 papers that
>>>> need to be referred to as a whole such as a monograph published
>>>> over several years etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> My thinking is that this is a little like issuing GUIDs for
>>>> geographical objects. Firstly we need a general coordinates system
>>>> to refer to a place in bibliographic space like a long lat. We can
>>>> do this with journal id + volume + part + page. We may then need
>>>> GUIDs for named locations within this bibliographic space (most
>>>> typically articles). They are parallel systems. The former is
>>>> easier to set up and the latter can always be resolved to it. In
>>>> fact better than in the geospatial world because the locations are
>>>> absolute. The geographic location of Paris is debatable but the
>>>> location of the page span of an article is more solid (though I am
>>>> sure there are some which are debatable).
>>>>
>>>> So it is the difference between building a coordinate system and
>>>> building a gazetteer. I think we should probably build the
>>>> coordinate system slightly ahead of the gazetteer simply because
>>>> it is easier and enables us to normalize the journals that occur
>>>> in the gazetteer.
>>>> If I resolve a GUID to a protolog I will expect the resulting
>>>> metadata to tell me unambiguously where I can find the thing. If I
>>>> resolve a whole bunch of GUIDs to protologs I would like my
>>>> computer to be able to relate them in some way. Tell me that one
>>>> resides inside another or two are adjacent for example. None of
>>>> this can be done without a standardized list of journals or
>>>> standard titles. Much of it can be done only by standardizing the
>>>> journals and not bothering with anything else.
>>>>
>>>> So what we need is a Bibliographic Positioning System (BPS instead
>>>> of GPS?) that enables the building of a gazetteer (biblio-names
>>>> instead of geo-names?).
>>>>
>>>> Both systems would, of course, map all the different identifiers
>>>> to each other. An LSID might return the DOI, ISBN or ISSN and any
>>>> other common catalogue number that is available. One could then
>>>> follow the DOI to a PDF of a recent document that is only
>>>> available under subscription. Also the whole thing would mesh
>>>> beautifully with the Biodiversity Heritage Library so another link
>>>> might take you to a page image of an out of copyright work and
>>>> another to a marked up version of the text.
>>>>
>>>> Lets do it!
>>>>
>>>> Roger :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Jan 2007, at 19:55, Roderic Page wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think this is a good idea (although I still think if we were
>>>>> truly serious we'd look at serving DOIs, they will be picked up
>>>>> by publishers, LSIDs probably won't be), but that's another issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> The complication here is deciding whether two references are the
>>>>> same or not. In other words, if say I merge ant literature from
>>>>> two different sources (such as FORMIS and Hymenoptera Name
>>>>> Server), can I avoid giving two different identifiers for the
>>>>> same reference? We would need reasonable means of deciding
>>>>> whether two alternative ways of writing the same reference (or
>>>>> variations on journal names, or author names) were just that,
>>>>> alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think for this project to be actually useful, it should
>>>>> provide a web service where somebody could see whether a given
>>>>> paper exists in the database (i.e., has a GUID). OpenURL provides
>>>>> an obvious model for a query interface, namely a URL with a
>>>>> standard list of parameters. This is how I discover whether ant
>>>>> papers already have a DOI (see http://semant.blogspot.com/
>>>>> 2006_08_01_semant_archive.html).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what I propose is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. A database of taxonomic literature is created, seed with files
>>>>> from anybody willing to contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. For all references in that database, existing GUIDs are
>>>>> searched for (e.g., DOIs and Handles)
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. A OpenURL service is created whereby a user can submit
>>>>> bibliographic details and the service returns a match (with some
>>>>> indication of how good the match is), and a GUID (either existing
>>>>> DOI, or whatever type of GUID the database supports.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would require some work on recognising matching references
>>>>> (see http://del.icio.us/rdmpage/bibliographic-references for some
>>>>> pointers).
>>>>>
>>>>> I always thought this would be the quickest, easiest way of
>>>>> providing a useful service and demonstrating the utility of GUIDs
>>>>> and metadata to the broader community.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Jan 2007, at 03:21, Robert K. Peet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Roger,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we really need is a set of GUIDs for individual references,
>>>>>> not just
>>>>>> journals/books. At present we have a set of DOI's used by
>>>>>> Crossref,
>>>>>> endnote-based standards imbedded in EML and VegBank, a simple
>>>>>> stub in TCS
>>>>>> (for lack of a standard) and ABCD, and any number of standards
>>>>>> if you look
>>>>>> around. The only way to be able to communciate efficiently is
>>>>>> with some
>>>>>> GUID system for individual references. My take on the GUID
>>>>>> meeting last
>>>>>> February at NESCent is that we as a community have pretty much
>>>>>> converged
>>>>>> on LSIDs, and you seemed to agree. Why don't we just establish an
>>>>>> LSID-based reference repository and let folks start contributing
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> critical references? I would be happy to submit a few thousand,
>>>>>> were you
>>>>>> to set it up :-) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
==================================================================
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> Robert K. Peet, Professor & Chair Phone:
>>>>>> 919-962-6942
>>>>>> Curriculum in Ecology, CB#3275 Fax:
>>>>>> 919-962-6930
>>>>>> University of North Carolina Cell:
>>>>>> 919-368-4971
>>>>>> Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3275 USA Email:
>>>>>> peet at unc.edu
>>>>>> http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/
>>>>>> http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
==================================================================
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Roger Hyam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am interested in conducting a social experiment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be very useful when combining taxonomic data from
>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>> databases if there were globally unique identifiers for major
>>>>>>> taxonomic publications (periodicals/serials and books). One
could
>>>>>>> then supplement a reference citation like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edinb.J. Bot. 47(2): 89-200 (1990)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with an LSID and/or a URL that will tell the user that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edinb. J. Bot. is the Edinburgh Journal of Botany published by
>>>>>>> HMSO
>>>>>>> in Edinburgh. It may also give other alias' it is known by and
>>>>>>> a note
>>>>>>> might say that it is a continuation of Notes from the Royal
>>>>>>> Botanic
>>>>>>> Garden Edinburgh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would enable the user to merge the data with people who have
>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>> other abbreviations for the same publication title - possibly
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> human interaction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lookup services could be created that went from abbreviation to
>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>> journal title.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The trouble is that the major lists of publications (e.g. BPH,
>>>>>>> TL2
>>>>>>> etc) are either:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - are not available electronically.
>>>>>>> - are available on a subscription basis.
>>>>>>> - are hopelessly out of date.
>>>>>>> - can not be added to instantly (if the one you want to use
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> cited).
>>>>>>> - are not freely distributable (i.e. you can't download the
>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>> lot and use them as a lookup table in your database or re-
>>>>>>> distribute
>>>>>>> them as part of a product or archive them to keep you data safe)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am thinking that this is an ideal test case to see if the
>>>>>>> 'community' could build a freely distributable list that helps
us
>>>>>>> all. The list would:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - only include 'top level' publications i.e. periodicals, books,
>>>>>>> multi volume works. It is assumed that it is relatively easy to
>>>>>>> unambiguously identify a location within such publications via
>>>>>>> volume, part, and page/plate numbers.
>>>>>>> - contain a simple set of fields for each publication.
>>>>>>> - would be entirely freely distributable. i.e. a complete copy
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> be downloaded under a LGPL or creative commons type license.
>>>>>>> - contributors would be acknowledged in a contributors list, but
>>>>>>> nothing more.
>>>>>>> - users could comment on entries and submit new entries in real
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>> - would be a key into/integrate with current and future
>>>>>>> digitization
>>>>>>> efforts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have three questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Has it already been done?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) If this system were available now and populated with the
>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>> of publications would you use it? Would it be useful?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) Do you (or some one you know) have a database containing
>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>> of titles of periodicals or books that you could export data
>>>>>>> from as
>>>>>>> a contribution to seed the list? If so how many records would
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> be and what subject areas (within biodiversity studies) would
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> cover?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can mail me off list if you don't want to commit to
>>>>>>> anything in
>>>>>>> front of everyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is still a thought experiment at the moment. I'll mail a
>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>> level summary of replies I get back to the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roger Hyam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Taxacom mailing list
>>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
==================================================================
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> Robert K. Peet, Professor Phone: 919-962-6942
>>>>>> Department of Biology, CB#3280 Fax: 919-962-6930
>>>>>> University of North Carolina Cell: 919-368-4971
>>>>>> Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280 USA Email: peet at unc.edu
>>>>>> http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
==================================================================
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> =
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Taxacom mailing list
>>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>> Professor Roderic D. M. Page
>>>>> Editor, Systematic Biology
>>>>> DEEB, IBLS
>>>>> Graham Kerr Building
>>>>> University of Glasgow
>>>>> Glasgow G12 8QP
>>>>> United Kingdom
>>>>>
>>>>> Phone: +44 141 330 4778
>>>>> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
>>>>> email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
>>>>> web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>>>>> iChat: aim://rodpage1962
>>>>> reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
>>>>> Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
>>>>> Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/
>>>>> portal/
>>>>> Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
>>>>> Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>>>>> Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> Professor Roderic D. M. Page
>>> Editor, Systematic Biology
>>> DEEB, IBLS
>>> Graham Kerr Building
>>> University of Glasgow
>>> Glasgow G12 8QP
>>> United Kingdom
>>>
>>> Phone: +44 141 330 4778
>>> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
>>> email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
>>> web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>>> iChat: aim://rodpage1962
>>> reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
>>>
>>> Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
>>> Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
>>> Search for taxon names:
>>> http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/
>>> Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
>>> Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>>> Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom mailing list
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> ----------------------------------------
> Professor Roderic D. M. Page
> Editor, Systematic Biology
> DEEB, IBLS
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QP
> United Kingdom
>
> Phone: +44 141 330 4778
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> iChat: aim://rodpage1962
> reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
>
> Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
> Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
> Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/
> Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
> Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Professor Roderic D. M. Page
Editor, Systematic Biology
DEEB, IBLS
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QP
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
iChat: aim://rodpage1962
reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/
Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list