[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Dean Pentcheff pentcheff at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 17:27:47 CDT 2014

Non-automated social input to Rod Page's suggestion: +1.

I _very_ much like the structure of this. At one swipe it takes care of a
lot of the problems of migrating a "comment" into "data", primarily by
removing the difference.

The assumption of the "comment on data" model is that data fields have
particular properties (numeric, free text, restricted vocabulary,
restricted numeric [e.g. lat/long], etc.), whereas comments are assumed to
be free text.

Rod's model (if I'm representing his proposal accurately) brings all the
"type" information of a field to what we are calling a comment on a field.
If you "comment" on a latitude, you have to put your comment in as a number
between -90 and +90. It's a datum in the correct format.

As part of the annotation system, one also assumes that any "comment" will
also have accompanying metadata (who made the comment, and quite likely a
free text field for the justification).

The key thing here is that it drastically reduces the difficulty of using
data from incoming comments by changing the job from
selection+interpretation+input to selection.

Dean Pentcheff
pentcheff at gmail.com
dpentche at nhm.org

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>

> Hi Chuck,
> So was I  sorry if I was being obscure.
> My take on the TripAdvisor model is that it is like this:
> [Source]
>    |
>    +— comment1 “Now in different genus"
>    |
>    +— comment2 “Maybe they meant Africa?"
> The comments can have social scores, badges, etc. Useful, but not really
> what I’m after. How do we get information from the comments? How do we move
> information from comments to the source? What if the source has
> insufficient resources to respond? We are left with source data that is
> being displayed, despite (say) comments saying “this data is wrong”.
> The “social data” model differs in that it doesn’t privilege any one
> particular source of information (so it’s not like the “sticky notes”
> TripAdvisor model), nor does it insist on one summary view (like a Wiki
> where the latest edit wins). Instead, everyone gets to write to the
> database, and nobody can overwrite what someone else writes. So the
> “primary source” isn’t privileged, but at the same time its data can’t be
> overwritten.
> What I have in mind is something like this:
> [ … ]
>    +— source
>    |
>    +— comment1
>    |
>    +— comment2
> The source is one of a number of “comments”, and the comments are not
> simply bits of text but actual data, e.g.
> [ … ]
>    +— "Mt. Brandenberg” [source]
>    |
>    +— lat -21.1, long 14.35 [GEOLocate]
>    |
>    +— "Mt. Brandenberg, Namibia” [Chuck Miller]
> Then we can do a bunch of things. We might just accept the primary source,
> or we might defer to your annotation, or we might synthesise them together
> a present a (hopefully) enhanced view of the data.
> The switch in perspective is from “I am the authority for this record and
> you may comment on it” to “together we will build the record”.
> Regards
> Rod
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
> 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:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
> Tel:  +44 141 330 4778
> Skype:  rdmpage
> Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
> Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
> Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> On 25 Aug 2014, at 19:09, Chuck Miller <Chuck.Miller at mobot.org<mailto:
> Chuck.Miller at mobot.org>> wrote:
> Rod,
> I was referring more to the commenting & rating aspects of Yelp &
> TripAdvisor when you mentioned a "social" approach.
> In TripAdvisor, each commenter makes a rating of a record (a hotel or
> restaurant in this case), then the individual ratings are summarized into
> summary scores.  The comments are displayed together, both positive and
> negative, for a record.  The commenters get "badges" but only for the
> quantity of their posts.  But, there are also "votes" on the comments by
> the users of the data if a comment is considered "helpful".  The records
> are ranked #1 to #Last based on the ratings. And finally there can be a
> response by the "owner" of the record.
> All of it adds up to "social annotation" - a collective think without
> rigor or standardization.  And for hotels and restaurants, it's very
> helpful.  Would it be as helpful for biodiversity data records?
> Chuck
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list