[Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...

Geoffrey Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Sun Sep 5 19:02:28 CDT 2010


I agree totally Stephen - as long as the urls are going to be stable.  The
other points I forgot to make are that a lot of old literature is NOT
digitised online, and that with uploading pdfs I was also thinking of
description extracts. Would be great to put them online species by species
if out of copyright, and it's possible to do that on WoRMS - but a lot of
work.

Geoff

On Mon, September 6, 2010 11:34 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>It's just a question of whether it's worthwhile to provide the link post
>> hoc,
>>when the user can go to BHL etc, themselves
>
> But that logic could be applied to everything on a biodiversity database!
> The
> whole point of such a database is in aggregation and integration of
> otherwise
> scattered primary data. Besides, while it is easy enough to go to BHL,
> there are
> many other scattered sources of digitised literature that take a great
> deal of
> hunting down, for example, this Russian book in its entirety:
> http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vipio_angaricus (see ref)
>
> It will be very interesting to see how WoRMS and Wikispecies evolve ...
>
> Stephen (with a 'ph')
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Mon, 6 September, 2010 11:11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...
>
> They can be direct urls Steven. It's just a question of whether it's
> worthwhile to provide the link post hoc, when the user can go to BHL etc,
> themselves.  WoRMS development cycle I suspect somewhat predates the
> recent rise of BHL and DOIs, hence the links may not be common yet in the
> database. But the links and DOIs can be put in, have been put in, and no
> doubt this will occur more frequently from now on with the new literature.
> It's also possible to upload pdfs directly online, but this is also a
> copyright issue.
>
> Geoff
>
> On Mon, September 6, 2010 10:57 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>> yes, except (unless I'm missing something) the citations aren't actually
>> linked
>> to the literature itself (i.e., PDFs, DOIs, links to BHL, etc.), so you
>> gotta go
>> hunting if you actually wanna read the literature ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
>> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Sent: Mon, 6 September, 2010 10:44:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...
>>
>> That criticism is ridiculous.
>>
>> There are 140,948 primary literature sources in WoRMS
>> http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=sourcelist
>>
>> For example 446 marine taxa are linked to Linnaeus 1758
>> http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=sourcedetails&id=8
>>
>> Not all of them correctly probably, but that's another story. ;-)
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>> On Mon, September 6, 2010 9:55 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>> Well, Geoff, no doubt WoRMS does have a few tricks of its own, but
>>> surely
>>> a HUGE
>>> advantage of Wikispecies is having links to primary literature
>>> (whenever
>>> available), as opposed to just citing another database as source?? With
>>> more and
>>> more literature going online (both new and historical), any database
>>> that
>>> doesn't index and link to that literature is wasting all our time IMO.
>>> In
>>> that
>>> sense, Wikispecies is more like an electronic library (you could get
>>> the
>>> "books"
>>> elsewhere, but here they all are classified by taxon relevance) ...
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>






More information about the Taxacom mailing list