[Taxacom] human involvement (was Re: BioNames)
P.Kirk at kew.org
Tue Jun 4 04:04:04 CDT 2013
I am inclined to agree with Rod :-)
... and for 'clean names linked to relevant nomenclatural events', for the Fungi, Index Fungorum is the place to go ... or to use remotely from the 'AND IN THE SAME PLACE'.
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page [r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk]
Sent: 04 June 2013 09:52
To: Taxa com; Richard Pyle
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] human involvement (was Re: BioNames)
Again, it's the genius of 'and' - we do both.
Perhaps Google is a good example. Their search engine returns all manner of stuff, some of it wonderful, some of it crap. We accept this because our experience is that it often will find what we want, even if we have to dig a little. The web without Google would be unusable.
But Google is also building the "clean bucket", namely their knowledge graph (seeded with content from http://www.freebase.com ). Google gives us BOTH in a search result, the classical list of hits on the left, and increasingly, a card on the right summarising information about the thing Google thinks we are searching for.
So, why can't we do this? Why not strive for clean, structured data (i.e., clean names linked to relevant nomenclatural events), but at the same time (AND IN THE SAME PLACE) give people what we currently have so they have a fighting chance of coming way with some information?
More information about the Taxacom