[Taxacom] A romp through an aggregator

[Stephen Thorpe]

cooperation is certainly a good idea (in theory, anyway)

I think, though, that part of the problem is the lack of a widely understood precise specification of what the task actually amounts to

my understanding is that the task is to integrate published primary taxonomic information into a coherent whole

this need not involve taxonomists (like Bob Mesibov, for example) who can continue to publish primary taxonomy (and ought not to compete with them for funding). The primary taxonomist's job is still primary!

however, there seems to be a big move to include unpublished raw data from museum collections, involving taxa that have not been revised. I am opposed to this. It threatens to become a cheap and dirty substitute for real taxonomy ...

another problem is that closed source databases are not as flexible as open source, and, being inevitably part of a big beauracratic machine, move at beauracratic speeds, making it very difficult to stay up-to-date, or to fix errors. Also, what do you do when your database disagrees with other databases? Do you (A) claim that the other database(s) is/are unreliable; or (B) alert the user to the other option(s), preferably by providing link(s) to it/them?

Stephen




________________________________
From: Kevin Richards <RichardsK at landcareresearch.co.nz>
To: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>; David Remsen (GBIF) <dremsen at gbif.org>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wed, 26 May, 2010 11:14:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A romp through an aggregator

Not sure why all these efforts have to be so competing?  There are obvious benefits of both approaches...

We need a way to make these efforts work together, and I suspect that the answer may be a faster feedback loop, from data source, to aggregator (s) back to data source.  One of the best ways to pick up errors/issues is to aggregate the data (including wikis) (top of the top down), then the best way to fix it is to provide feedback to the data provider (bottom of the bottom up), so they can either fix the issue, or improve the data flow into the aggregators.

Eg

Data provider  ->  regional aggregator  -> global aggregator / wikis
    ^                                              |
    |                                              v
Feedback  <-  data use / issue spotting  <-  portal (eg EoL)


Of course "data use" could happen at any point in this cycle, but I don't think that the "quality" of the data at any point should make any part of the cycle "better" than the other part??  Just indicate that some pert of the cycle needs improving/updating/etc, no??

Kevin


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Mesibov
Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 12:20 a.m.
To: David Remsen (GBIF)
Cc: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A romp through an aggregator

David,

I'll be out of contact for a few days but will try to respond quickly. I think two things are being confused here. First, we have people who want my (or anyone's) data, and we'd like an efficient way for those people to get the data. Second, we have projects which are aspiring (I won't say claiming) to be the best possible in-between data brokers. It should be obvious that I don't have much time for the project approach. The first matter is different, because it goes to the heart of what Stephen Thorpe was asking: who wants what data, and why? There's flexibility implied there that isn't possible with pre-structured data. Sets of names linked to sets of specimens are not the whole story, because the names and IDs are works-in-progress, and because beyond taxonomic and specimen data there really is a lot more to biodiversity that cannot be easily structured with a data mark-up protocol. If the only biodiversity information available is the kind that can
 be served between databases, then we don't need taxonomists (or biologists, for that matter). The most efficient way to link answer-seeker and answer-supplier is with a phone number, an email address or an online forum. The next most efficient way is with bottom-up resources, including the wiki-style builds that Jason Mate prefers. The aspiring middlemen just aren't up to the job. They literally don't know what they're handling.
--
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
03 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html

_______________________________________________

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

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

_______________________________________________

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