[Taxacom] Centrally supported electronic archive

Stuart Fullerton stuartf at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Wed May 27 07:47:23 CDT 2009 

ah yes - and in 15 years all this will be outdated and we will start all 
over again with the latest and newest and "forever" system that will not 
work on anything some of us will still have at that time.  meanwhile i 
find that a good reprint collection and an old fashioned 3 x 5 card 
system works just fine for my needs.  luddite aren't i.  same thing i am 
already facing with our individual specimen data base system for the 
ucfc. alas it will give some b right young person something to do to 
make them feel important and more important keep them employed - if 
there is any money.  money - ha. lets try chits.

i love it.  keep it up.



Mary Barkworth wrote:

>The OCRing is useful. I am not sure that "discovering the treatments"
>is. The point was made that parts of a protologue may be widely
>scattered (consisting of several "fragments") which is why access to the
>whole of a work is desirable. Unless by "discovering the treatments" you
>mean such things as identifying starts of chapters, articles, or
>sections. Am I right in assuming that thepart of OCRing that is
>time-consuming is verification/proof-reading?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Donat Agosti [mailto:agosti at amnh.org] 
>Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:48 AM
>To: Mary Barkworth; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Cc: Peter B. Phillipson; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Centrally supported electronic archive
>
>
>Over all, the scanning itself is the least expensive part. OCR-ing and
>extracting the treatments takes much more time and expertise, even
>though
>scanning properly is an art in itself...
>I think, there is nothing insignificant in this process. At the same
>time,
>a huge number of colleagues are scanning their documents independently
>that sharing this burden. If there would be a way to discover them, so
>that they then could be used for further processing, then we would have
>resolved one of the first bottlenecks in the transformation process.
>BHL,
>if I am right, is looking into this sort of archive - aren't you, Chris?
>
>Donat
>
>
>  
>
>>The problem, at least with articles and books that are not already
>>scanned, is surely the cost of scanning, particularly if the work is
>>    
>>
>old
>  
>
>>or rare. That is not insignificant.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Peter B.
>>Phillipson
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:33 AM
>>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Centrally supported electronic archive
>>
>>I do want to deal with the whole article.....
>>
>>We should all be encouraged to read the entire paper or chapter in
>>    
>>
>which
>  
>
>>a
>>protologue (or any nomenclatural change) is published, there is often
>>crucial information about the whereabouts of specimens the author has
>>cited
>>and other valuable information in an introduction, illustration or
>>elsewhere
>>in an article, that can aid interpretation of the original author's
>>intentions, especially in older publications.
>>
>>I have often been frustrated in the past by requesting the page
>>    
>>
>numbers
>  
>
>>cited for a particular protologue through inter-library loans, only to
>>discover that essential parts of a protologue and its context were
>>missing.
>>With electronic media it doesn't usually cost more to send or download
>>all
>>the pages of an article than just the 1 page that contains the bare
>>minimum,
>>so why cut corners?
>>
>>We should also encourage authors (and databasers) to be as
>>    
>>
>comprehensive
>  
>
>>as
>>possible in citing earlier taxonomic references, so that it is easier
>>for
>>future generations to obtain all the relevant pages of a publication -
>>citing both the entire publication and the specific pages that contain
>>all
>>of the elements of a protologue.
>>
>>Pete Phillipson
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van
>>Rijckevorsel
>>Sent: 27 May 2009 08:44
>>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Centrally supported electronic archive
>>
>>
>>From: "Jim Croft" <jim.croft at gmail.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:59 PM
>>
>>    
>>
>>>When
>>>someone calls [f]or the protologue, we do not want to send them the
>>>whole article.  With limited resources we can not afford to scan
>>>      
>>>
>an[d]
>  
>
>>>store the whole article when all we want is one page of it...
>>>      
>>>
>>***
>>Yes, an important issue: if all you want is the protologue, you do not
>>want
>>to have to deal with a whole article. However, a complicating factor
>>    
>>
>is
>  
>
>>that
>>from a nomenclatural perspective it is not necessarily immediately
>>apparent
>>what the protologue is; in fact it needs to be be 'circumscribed' from
>>case
>>to case. In the modern literature this will (almost always) be
>>straightforward, but the introduction, etc to a book or article may
>>    
>>
>also
>  
>
>>contain material that belongs to the protologue. Say, the
>>Acknowlegdements
>>may comment: "we are deeply grateful for the hospitality of Mr
>>Przilowsky;
>>in acknowledgement we have named our third species in honour of his
>>eldest
>>daughter". Theoretically, there may be a separation of hundreds of
>>    
>>
>pages
>  
>
>>between one part of the protologue and another.
>>
>>["Protologue ...: everything associated with a name at its valid
>>publication, i.e. description or diagnosis, illustrations, references,
>>synonymy, geographical data, citation of specimens, discussion, and
>>comments."]
>>
>>It is not required that all the requirements of valid publication are
>>met in
>>a single publication; the final 'validating' publication only needs to
>>refer
>>to all the required parts, which need to have been effectively
>>    
>>
>published
>  
>
>>earlier. For example the final publication may be a few lines only,
>>    
>>
>but
>  
>
>>refer to a page-filling illustration elsewhere. So a protologue can be
>>spread over more than one publication. All in all, 'circumscribing' a
>>protologue is not a trivial matter. However, if the result goes into
>>    
>>
>an
>  
>
>>accessible database, it need be done only once.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Stuart M Fullerton ROF, Research Associate in charge of Arthropod
Collections (UCFC), Dept. of Biology, University of Central Florida, PO
Box 162368, Orlando, Florida, 32816-2368, USA. stuartf at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
(407) 823-6540 (no voice mail) <http://biology.cos.ucf.edu/bugs/>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list