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

[Geoff Read]

Once upon a time Syngraph was developed by Adorian Ardelean to help with
part of that PUTNI (or applied name) organizing & distilling. It's still
there I see. I didn't know one could easily connect it to an existing
relational database - but apparently so ....   I might give it another try
sometime!

http://web.nhm.ku.edu/inverts/syngraph/beta/index.htm

Geoff


>>> On 14/08/2009 at 11:36 a.m., Pat LaFollette <pat at lafollette.com> wrote:
> 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