[Taxacom] data quality vs. data security: a survey
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sat Feb 13 12:47:34 CST 2010
> OMG! Did you really just say that! How is a massive
> duplication of effort increasingly allowing a massive
> reduction of redundant/duplicate effort????????
It appears you didn't understand my post. As you say, "communication is a
very difficult thing, particularly on topics as complex as this", so I'll
try again. You seem to characterize all the various large-scale data
aggregators (GBIF, EOL, COL, ALA, etc.) as "massive duplication of effort".
While there is certainly some overlap among them, the duplication is by no
means "massive". To say so reveals a poor understanding about what these
different initiatives actually do.
Everytime information about a species, a taxonomic publication citation,
etc., etc. is typed by humans on a keyboard (whether it be typed into a
manuscrapt, a database, a wikispecies page, or wherever), that's duplication
of effort. Individually, it seems trivial -- but in aggregate it is most
certainly *not* trivial.
> INTEGRATION is one thing, but MULTIPLE INTEGRATION
> INITIATIVES leading to numerous clone or near clone
> integrated databases is completely self-defeating!
You seem to be confusing "Aggregation" with "Integration". Google is an
aggregator (an indexer, really -- like GBIF). The DNS system is an
architecture for integration. The equivalent of DNS for biodiversity
information is what I mean by integration.
More information about the Taxacom