[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Aug 25 01:58:53 CDT 2014


Hi Bob,

> What's wrong with
> sources > GBIF > expert > 'Checklist of fishes of the Northwestern
Hawaiian
> Islands'
> (freely available online, readily update-able, compilers easily
contacted)?

Because that's a very one-dimensional view of the data.  It's not as if the
only value of the occurrence records we cite is to fulfill our one narrow
goal (species occurrence in one geographic area), so why should the "end
game" for this information be such a specific synthesis?

The model should be something like:
                           Expert
	Expert	|   Expert
	         \	|    /
Source --->    GBIF - Expert
	         /	|    \
	Expert	|   Expert
                           Expert

[Not sure how that ASCII art will hold up through Taxacom....]

Each expert gains something from the data (in our case, to help flesh out
our checklist).   The open question is how the value-added
information/cleanup by the experts can trickle back to the source -- either
directly, or via GBIF.  I suspect the general picture Rod outlined may be
what ends up happening

> or
> sources > GBIF > expert > sources (straightaway) *and* 'Checklist' > GBIF
> (eventually)

Yes -- that's closer to it, I think.

> Please think first of users, not GBIF.

When did I ever give you the impression that I thought anything other than
that?????

> You admitted that you hadn't been following this thread closely, so:
> (1) from a single source, like a museum, GBIF may have *less information*
> than the source database. That might be because the source didn't use the
> GBIF IPT, or because a Procrustean truncator like OZCAM/ALA sat in-
> between, or because it's too hard for staff to finagle their database
fields
> into Darwin Core format. If the source database is or could be online,
it's an
> alternative and superior data source *for the same record*, and GBIF
should
> link to it.
> (2) the single-source record included in GBIF may be wrong. It's been
> corrected (for taxonomy, or geography, or whatever) and is now available
in
> upgraded form at another location on the Web. Until your 'sources > GBIF >
> expert > GBIF (eventually) > sources (ultimately)' pipeline completes,
GBIF
> should link to the other location.

OK, thanks for clarifying.  Agreed.

Aloha,
Rich





More information about the Taxacom mailing list