[Taxacom] The economics of biodiversity database initiatives
R.Govaerts at kew.org
Mon Oct 28 06:08:59 CDT 2013
The difference is that GenBank provides real objects, namely the sequence while GBIF only provides an interpretation of an underlying real object (the specimen or observed organism). If images of the specimen or observed organism were attached to each record the data would become of real use.
With types there has been a lot of effort towards that as everyone realised that knowing the type is Smith 3672 is of little use, you need an image as now provided by Jstor for many taxa.
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Roderic Page
Sent: 28 October 2013 10:52
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The economics of biodiversity database initiatives
Unusually, perhaps, I find myself agreeing with Stephen, at least as far as "understanding/making sense of what is going on".
I think there are some tensions in the biodiversity world, perhaps because many of the people providing data (either directly or indirectly) are not the targeted users of the aggregated data. Many taxonomy databases aren't really for taxonomists, they are intended for other people to use (e.g., people doing large-scale biodiversity studies).
Databases don't appear to offer much offer in return in terms of helping a taxonomist do their own research. The claimed benefits are often rather abstract, rather than tangible things that help taxonomic research. In particular, databases rarely offer serendipity, the ability to discover things that a specialist didn't already know. If a database doesn't tell you anything new, there's really not a lot of point (from an individual's perspective).
Compare this, say, to GenBank. If you work with DNA sequences, GenBank is integral to your research. You may find sequences there for your organisms that you had no idea existed (e.g., they might be collected for an entirely unrelated study in a different discipline). You can discover new information, partly because almost all genomic data goes there, and partly because it is easily computable. As an illustration, the phylogenies in BioNames (obtained from http://phylota.net ) such as http://bionames.org/trees/phylota/ti106220_cl0_db184 are built on sequences from a range of taxonomic, systematic, ecological, and coevolutionary studies. Not only is the tree a synthesis of data from different sources, but if you look at the papers contributing those sequences you have a way into a diverse literature about those organisms (as an aside, I suspect GenBank may become the single most important biodiversity database we have, but that's another story).
So, one challenge might be to figure out how aggregators can provide tangible value to those providing the data.
Professor of Taxonomy
Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
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.
More information about the Taxacom