[Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Sep 5 19:25:43 CDT 2010


instability of URLs is a problem, but not a really big problem. Obviously, DOIs, 
handles, and links to major sites like BHL are preferable. A potentially 
unstable URL is still well worth putting in a database - either you get what you 
want from it or you don't, but you CERTAINLY don't if it isn't there! 


Media files (including PDFs) that are out of copyright can be uploaded to the 
Wikimedia Commons, and linked to by Wikispecies/Wikipedia, so again this isn't 
an advantage of WoRMS or Wikispecies over the other ...

Actually, I wouldn't like to see too many description extracts being uploaded. 
From a nomenclatural perspective, it is the whole article/book which matters, 
and if you quote things out of context they can get messy.

Stephen

 

________________________________
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 12:02:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WoRMS fixes Kerguelenia ...

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