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

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Patrick LaFolette wrote:

> 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.

Well, parts of this are in place, viz. the activities of the nomenclators, e.g. at genus level, http://uio.mbl.edu/NomenclatorZoologicus/ and http://botany.si.edu/ing/ , at species level the work of Index Fungorum and others, while for original literature see e.g. http://www.animalbase.uni-goettingen.de/ and the BHL. Also ZooBank intends to be a registry of much of this stuff. The current thinking for establishing the relevant linkages is presumably in the realm of the upcoming GNA, for which I leave e.g. David Remsen to comment further...

Regards - Tony


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
Sent: Friday, 14 August 2009 11:49 AM
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Wikispecies is not a database: part 3 (after thinkingabout it!)

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




_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here