[Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after thinking about it!)

[Gail Kampmeier]

This seems a good point to remind everyone that the end of the Public  
Comment Period for the Darwin Core Standard is looming on the 10th of  
August 2009 http://www.tdwg.org/homepage-news-item/ 
article/-08216d63cd/  Taxacomers were amongst the first to receive an  
invitation to view and comment on this community-based standard for  
sharing biodiversity information, and I would like to thank all who  
have participated thus far.  Many are anxiously awaiting the  
elevation of this work to a Standard.

As Mike points out, although technology would enable us to share and  
parse information, it is a lot more work to do so without standards,  
and fraught with many more potential errors without a common  
understanding/agreement of the data being shared.  This is important  
for all of us.

The proposed Darwin Core Standard is a living document.  Built into  
it are mechanisms for extending and changing it as needed.  Please  
take this opportunity to explore this proposed standard and voice  
your opinions during this Public Comment Period.

Sincerely,
Gail Kampmeier
Review Manager for the Darwin Core


On Aug 8, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Mike Sadka wrote in part:

> In my opinion (for what it's worth) I think many of the sensible  
> things that have been suggested in this and related discussions  
> (eg, inter alia - better flow of data between grass-roots databases  
> and large aggregators) are not achievable until there are robust  
> standards for storing and manipulating taxonomic data.
>
> I would also suggest that this is less my opinion and more a  
> statement of technical reality.  All IT applications that can  
> readily exchange data need common data standards in order to do so.
>
> Development of standards is arduous, but once standards and  
> protocols are in place, applications can proliferate - just look  
> what the HTTP and IP protocols with HTML and other web technology  
> standards have done for the web in just a few years.
>
> I would totally sympathise with anyone who groans at my mention of  
> "standards" - but I don't see any getting away from that in the  
> end.  So rather than numerous competing high-level money-sapping  
> aggregation projects, it would be better (if harder to fund) to put  
> resources into developing such standards.