[Taxacom] Data query

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Jun 24 20:55:01 CDT 2013


Yes, but that just reeks of misunderstanding and prejudice (both of which tend to go hand in hand) ...
 
>her school has an explicitly stated rule for all students that anyone who uses Wikipedia as a reference source for any of their assignments will lose marks<
 
Then you should change schools, because they are idiots! Wikipedia is not intended to be a reference source to be cited as such. Rather it is a pointer to reference sources. So, if you want to find out the answer to a question, you go to the relevant Wikipedia article, and it will point you to the revent reference, which you can then cite as your source, without the need to mention Wikipedia at all. That's all it claims to be, nothing more, nothing less! 
 
The reality is that if you place your data behind a firewall, you just lock in the errors, and are doomed to become outdated as fast as yesterday's newspaper! I dare you to try to insert some misinformtion into Wikipedia ... see how far you get before being pounced on and blocked by an army of people just waiting for the opportunity to do so!
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: "Walker, Ken" <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
To: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>; "stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> 
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Data query


> It's also not a criticism of database managers to say that they don't allow just anyone to edit their data, the way Wikispecies does,

Rule No. 1 in data management is: "Place your primary dataset behind your firewall -- Do not allow public access to your primary data source."

> From the point of view of the Web user looking at the information, there's no in-principle difference.

My daughter is in Year 9 at school and her school has an explicitly stated rule for all students that anyone who uses Wikipedia as a reference source for any of their assignments will lose marks.

Some see that there is a difference.

Ken



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Mesibov
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013 11:14 AM
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Cc: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Data query

Stephen Thorpe wrote:

"You mean until we have one place where anyone can "just do it" and add missing data at their leisure with minimum fuss, to help build a comprehensive catalogue of world biota ... oh, wait! We do have such a place ... Wikispecies!"

Tony Rees wrote:

"Also, most informatics persons (biological data specialists) would probably contend that there are more appropriate data structures than wikispecies for bulk importing, internal data management and review, bulk queries (including machine-machine as well as human), and bulk export of relevant content (which is why the bulk of present taxonomic information resides in databases, with web pages as by-products, rather than in web pages as their native format)."

I'm having trouble understanding Tony's argument. Wikispecies is not primarily a data storage and management structure. It's the equivalent of the 'web pages as by-products' made from databases, a way to get the results of taxonomic activity made widely known. Stephen builds web pages by hand, databasers export web pages from their databases, but in both cases the information put online comes from the taxonomic literature, yes? From the point of view of the Web user looking at the information, there's no in-principle difference. Wikispecies is less complete than some databases, but on the other hand Wikispecies is often more up to date, and sometimes more accurate.

It's not a criticism of Wikispecies to say that it's no good for 'bulk importing, internal data management and review, bulk queries (including machine-machine as well as human), and bulk export of relevant content'. That's like criticising cars because they don't fly like airplanes do. But they get you from A to B just the same.

It's also not a criticism of database managers to say that they don't allow just anyone to edit their data, the way Wikispecies does, at the Web-output stage. Database managers ask that users suggest their edits 'off-Web', so the database can be changed, then the changes exported to the Web. It's a different mechanism for editing.

Which brings me back to that first post of mine, that pushed some unintended buttons. What *are* appropriate data structures for storing the complex relationships involved in taxonomic, nomenclatural and bibliographic data? And are those structures capable of being marked up on a webpage? If so, then the gap between Wikispecies and Big Databases disappears. The marked-up page can be generated by a database, or built/edited by hand.

I asked if anyone had experience with graph databases because they seem to me to be the logical way to store and manipulate objects ('nodes' = names, authors, publications, type specimens...) and relationships ('published by', 'cited by', 'synonym of'...). Doing this with RDBMS and joins seems to be out of the question for anything but very simple cases.
--
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania Home contact:
PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.


Museums Board of Victoria ABN 63 640 679 155 is endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient.
All gifts of $2 or more are tax deductible.



Melbourne Museum, winner of the Victorian Tourism Awards for Best Major Tourist Attraction in 2010,2011,2012 and Australian winner in 2011.

http://museumvictoria.com.au/
This e-mail is solely for the named addressee and may be confidential. You should only read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on or commercialise the contents if you are authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify mailto:npostmaster at museum.vic.gov.au by email immediately, or notify the sender and then destroy any copy of this message. Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where specifically stated to be those of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum Victoria does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that it is free from errors, virus or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list