[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Aug 25 01:58:53 CDT 2014
> What's wrong with
> sources > GBIF > expert > 'Checklist of fishes of the Northwestern
> (freely available online, readily update-able, compilers easily
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
\ | /
Source ---> GBIF - 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
> sources > GBIF > expert > sources (straightaway) *and* 'Checklist' > GBIF
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
> 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
> into Darwin Core format. If the source database is or could be online,
> alternative and superior data source *for the same record*, and GBIF
> 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
> upgraded form at another location on the Web. Until your 'sources > GBIF >
> expert > GBIF (eventually) > sources (ultimately)' pipeline completes,
> should link to the other location.
OK, thanks for clarifying. Agreed.
More information about the Taxacom