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

[Pat LaFollette]

Quoting Stephen Thorpe:

>Still, though, all I hear is talk about what you can do with the data
>once you have it! Why am I the only one addressing the issue of how
>and where you get the data from in the first place? OK, ultimately you
>get it from primary taxonomic publications, but how? By whom? How long
>does it take? How reliable is the process? What is the process?

You are not the only one thinking about this.  I've even coined the 
seemingly obligatory acronym: PUTNI (PUblished Taxonomic Name 
Instance).  Everyone I know who does taxonomic revision or other 
systematic work makes them in one form or another.  Historically, one 
would take notes on file cards, or photocopy taxonomic publications, 
cut up the text and plates, add citation and notes, and arrange them 
systematically in notebooks.  What is needed (what I need) is a 
digital analog for the scissors and tape, a standard PUTNI object and 
and tools to make them.  The raw material in digital format is 
becoming available on Internet Archive and Biodiversity Heritage 
Library; when necessary one packs up laptop and scanner and heads to 
the library.  Who makes them?  Whoever needs them to support their 
own research (or a hive of worker bees if funding were 
available).  How long does it take?  That really depends on the 
quality and efficiency of the tools, but probably a very long 
time.  On the up-side, if done properly, it only needs to be done 
once for each taxonomic work or group.

My ideal PUTNI tool would include links to bibliographic citation and 
taxonomic heirarchy, cut and paste from digital page and plate 
images, OCR, translation assistance, the ability to code taxonomic 
acts and errors, add notes and keywords, and link from the synonymy 
items to the PUTNIs they indicate.

Patrick LaFollette