[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Roderic Page Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
Thu Aug 21 18:08:14 CDT 2014


Hi Bob,

Yes, "unvetted" (over enthusiastic autocorrection).

This Googling/email/phoning/bumping into people doesn't sound terribly scalable to me :(

Regarding citation, what I had in mind was, rather than a paper as such, the actual data is directly uploaded and is citable. This motion that we publish a paper, then extract the data and add that to a database is rather quaint. I suspect that in future we will see more direct  publication of data ("data papers" are a step along the way towards that).

Regards

Rod

Sent from Acompli<http://t.acompli.com/ac_sig>

_____________________________
From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au<mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au>>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 23:38
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
To: Roderic Page <roderic.page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:roderic.page at glasgow.ac.uk>>
Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>, Lyubomir Penev <lyubo.penev at gmail.com<mailto:lyubo.penev at gmail.com>>, TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>


Rod,"Bob, if I understand your argument correctly, it’s that access to mostly unveiled biodiversity data isn’t much use, and in your view that’s mostly what GBIF is serving up."I think you meant 'unvetted'. What I thought I was saying clearly is that unvetted data isn't useful to specialists or to anyone serious about conservation at the species or geographically local level. Let's call them Skeptical Users. Unvetted data *is* useful for people wanting a broad-brush picture, or wanting to make generalisations that people on this list would find unacceptably broad, or whose uses simply don't require accuracy. Let's call those people Casual Users.For specialist and conservation purposes, GBIF is unlikely *ever* to be suitable for Skeptical Users. The more annotations and links you burden it with, the harder it gets to use, and the more attractive alternative sources become, such as bottom-up, specialist-built databases and websites, and scattered gems of geographically local information found by googling, emailing, phoning around and bumping into people at conferences.GBIF will *always* be useful to Casual Users. Stop worrying about links and annotations for those people. They don't care, and they certainly won't be following them up. That's the market for biodiversity aggregators. Specialists like me and those Europeans I mentioned will shop elsewhere.What I suggested (tongue in cheek) was that GBIF could become useful to Skeptical Users if it *disaggregated* what it offers into bits based on how they were vetted (and when, now that I think of it), and beyond that, directly supported vetting by specialists, rather than the current, incredibly dumb model of 'Someone Out There Will Notice An Error And Tell Us About It'."Assuming that it would be nice to have access to good-quality distributional data in one place, what if GBIF provided, say, distributions of species that had been cleaned and had some degree of expert scrutiny. In other words, say a researcher publishes an evidence-based distribution map, what if that was stored on GBIF in a citable form (e.g., had a DOI), and others could download that distribution and make use of it?"Um... I'm missing something here? If it's published and citable, do I need GBIF to help me find it?"+1 for extracting from the literature, especially if we can automate this at scale (although that will give Bob nightmares)."Please don't confuse the elegant record-publishing done by Pensoft (for example) with parsing of OCR'ed literature. The latter is the 'Chinese Whispers' of biodiversity informatics.-- Dr Robert MesibovHonorary Research AssociateQueen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, andSchool of Land and Food, University of TasmaniaHome contact:PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316(03) 64371195; 61<tel:64371195;%2061> 3 64371195

Rod,

"Bob, if I understand your argument correctly, it’s that access to mostly unveiled biodiversity data isn’t much use, and in your view that’s mostly what GBIF is serving up."

I think you meant 'unvetted'. What I thought I was saying clearly is that unvetted data isn't useful to specialists or to anyone serious about conservation at the species or geographically local level. Let's call them Skeptical Users. Unvetted data *is* useful for people wanting a broad-brush picture, or wanting to make generalisations that people on this list would find unacceptably broad, or whose uses simply don't require accuracy. Let's call those people Casual Users.

For specialist and conservation purposes, GBIF is unlikely *ever* to be suitable for Skeptical Users. The more annotations and links you burden it with, the harder it gets to use, and the more attractive alternative sources become, such as bottom-up, specialist-built databases and websites, and scattered gems of geographically local information found by googling, emailing, phoning around and bumping into people at conferences.

GBIF will *always* be useful to Casual Users. Stop worrying about links and annotations for those people. They don't care, and they certainly won't be following them up. That's the market for biodiversity aggregators. Specialists like me and those Europeans I mentioned will shop elsewhere.

What I suggested (tongue in cheek) was that GBIF could become useful to Skeptical Users if it *disaggregated* what it offers into bits based on how they were vetted (and when, now that I think of it), and beyond that, directly supported vetting by specialists, rather than the current, incredibly dumb model of 'Someone Out There Will Notice An Error And Tell Us About It'.

"Assuming that it would be nice to have access to good-quality distributional data in one place, what if GBIF provided, say, distributions of species that had been cleaned and had some degree of expert scrutiny. In other words, say a researcher publishes an evidence-based distribution map, what if that was stored on GBIF in a citable form (e.g., had a DOI), and others could download that distribution and make use of it?"

Um... I'm missing something here? If it's published and citable, do I need GBIF to help me find it?

"+1 for extracting from the literature, especially if we can automate this at scale (although that will give Bob nightmares)."

Please don't confuse the elegant record-publishing done by Pensoft (for example) with parsing of OCR'ed literature. The latter is the 'Chinese Whispers' of biodiversity informatics.
--
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania
Home contact:
PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195



More information about the Taxacom mailing list