[Taxacom] ITS, Species 2000,[Scanned]
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon May 28 04:31:40 CDT 2007
Anna covered much of what my response would have been; but I did want to
point out one resource that you might find helpful:
And, in particular:
The TDWG/GBIF community has agreed to adopt LSIDs as an initial GUID
solution, to allow everyone to start moving forward with software
development. All GUID schemes have pros and cons, and there seems to be no
perfect solution. But LSIDs are relatively easy and straightforward, and
don't cost anything.
As for workshops, most of the technologies and standards are not well
implemented yet. DiGIR and DarwinCore were an exception to this (i.e., your
reference to workshops on how to expose data to GBIF), which is why it was
appropriate to spread the word widely on that one. The time will come
(soon, I hope) when other standards have stabilized enough to perform
similar outreach efforts to help people get on board. From my perspective,
though, doing so now would be premature, both because the standards
themselves are not quite solidified, and because there are not sufficient
"turn-key" software applications (as there essentially was for DiGIR
operating on DarwinCore datasets) to be useful to most data content holders.
As Anna said, there is clear progress being made, and it feels much closer
to reality now than it did a year ago, and a quantum leap forward compared
with five years ago. These are indeed exciting times to be both a database
nerd and a taxonomy nerd.
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Mary
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:39 PM
> To: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ITS, Species 2000,[Scanned]
> I do not know about others but I am, or have been, a member
> of TDWG. I suspect I need to pay up. I do pay some attention
> to what goes on; obviously it is not my major interest. I do
> not expect you to attend sessions on grass systematics but
> ultimately, it is such information that we are talking about
> sharing. I spend minimal time attending sessions where there
> are discussions about standards. So far as I can see, most
> end up in finding there is need for further discussion.
> Almost like taxonomy. Another point of reality - my
> institution, which is more generous than some that I know of,
> contributes up to $500 per year for conference attendance.
> This means being very choosey about the meetings that I
> attend - the funding that I have had recently (for completing FNA
> 24) explicitly excluded travel.
> My comment about the tutorial and workshops was prompted by
> Rod's comments that there are standards that can be used. If
> there are, then surely someone could be a missionary on how
> ordinary taxonomists can implement them, to the greater good
> of all? NBII had workshops on how to get on to GBIF - and now
> more institutions are providing data (though not nearly as
> many as might). I would prefer workshops at the meetings that
> I attend for the systematicy stuff because that way I do not
> have to dig so far into my pocket. My guess is that others
> are the same way.
> Back to annotating.
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
More information about the Taxacom