[Taxacom] Sorry, but you are out-of-line

[Stephen Thorpe]

>*EXACTLY*!

I somehow find it deeply disturbing when you agree with me! :)

>By "crap" I meant non-factual, typographically inacurate, or duplicate record 
>instances

You mean like urn:lsid:organismnames.com:name:812100 (a beetle name almost 
certainly based on the radical misinterpretation of a publication on a fungus of 
the same name)

>Whether or not we chose to follow Smith (1950) is a decision that is made 
>externally to the "Globally Shared Biodiversity Data Resourse" (GSBDR).

Yeah, I've heard that one a million times, but whose opinions are to be included 
or excluded from consideration? And, end user needs require a sensible decision 
on which option to run with to be made by those whom they perceive to be in a 
better position to make such decisions than they are. Something of an analogy: 
if I look up an encyclopedia for the answer to a question, I don't just want to 
be told "well, Smith (1850) stated this, Jones (1900) stated that, Bloggs (2000) 
 stated the other ..." Sure, there is no absolute truth that we can access, but 
there are more and less sensible options, and the typical end user isn't in a 
good position to evaluate how sensible an option is ...



________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
Cc: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 15 November, 2010 5:49:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Sorry, but you are out-of-line

> I am not troubled by "duplication" in the sense 
> of multiple copies of the same data for the 
> sake of data security. 

...and direct local access (high-performance queries that do not need to
cross the internet)

> What troubles me is duplication of effort, 
> especially when all that duplication is being funded. 

*EXACTLY*!

> I assume that it would cost next to nothing just 
> to make and distribute copies of content? No problem ...

That's the idea.
    
> these *only* requirements are both *huge* requirements, 

Not so much the first one.  Lots of solutions there, with appropriate
checkums and verifications, etc.

But the second one...well, in principle it should be easy.  But given the
nature of our particular community (evidenced by recent threads)....OK, I'll
give you that one as "Huge".

> I take it you don't care if someone like Makhan disagrees, 
> but where do you draw the line? If you can come up with 
> a mechanism, agreed to by the taxonomic community, to 
> resolve issues of data conflict, then I will be impressed! 

I don't know who "Makhan" is, but the "shared" dataset I was talking about
is factual.

For example, the statement: "Aus bus is a synonym of Aus xus" is not a fact;
it's an opinion.  However, this statement is a fact: "Smith (1950) treated
Aus bus is a synonym of Aus xus" [where Smith et al. (1950) is a
representation of a full literature citation]. It's the latter sort of thing
I would like us to all have direct access to.  Whether or not we chose to
follow Smith (1950) is a decision that is made externally to the "Globally
Shared Biodiversity Data Resourse" (GSBDR).

> try defining "crap data" in an objective and rigorous fashion! 

By "crap" I meant non-factual, typographically inacurate, or duplicate
record instances.  That Smith (1950) regarded Aus bus as a synonym of Aus
xus is only "crap" if there is no publication of Smith 1950, or if that
publication did not regard Aus bus as a synonym of Aus xus, or if that
publication actually spelled it "Auus bus" and "Auus xus".

The "crappiness" of Smith's taxonomic judgement is not of concern in this
context.

Aloha,
Rich