[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Roderic Page Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
Mon Aug 25 18:14:14 CDT 2014


Dean,

Yes, that's an elegant way of putting it.

Imagine we also enable people to log in with, say, their ORCID

This means that they are identified in a way that can be linked to their academic profile (why should I trust your input - oh, I see from your profile on http://orcid.org that you've published 10 papers on this taxon, OK, you clearly know what you're talking...). It also gives us a way to give credit by adding these annotations to that ORCID profile (in the same way that papers, datasets, and individual figures are being added).

Regards

Rod

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

_____________________________
From: Dean Pentcheff <pentcheff at gmail.com<mailto:pentcheff at gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 23:28
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
Cc: Roderic Page <roderic.page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:roderic.page at glasgow.ac.uk>>, Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au<mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au>>, Chuck Miller <chuck.miller at mobot.org<mailto:chuck.miller at mobot.org>>


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
--
Dean Pentcheff
pentcheff at gmail.com<mailto:pentcheff at gmail.com>
dpentche at nhm.org<mailto:dpentche at nhm.org>


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
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><mailto: Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>>
Tel:  +44 141 330 4778<tel:+44%20141%20330%204778>
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><mailto: 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<mailto: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.



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
--
Dean Pentcheff
pentcheff at gmail.com<mailto:pentcheff at gmail.com>
dpentche at nhm.org<mailto:dpentche at nhm.org>


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
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><mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>>
Tel:  +44 141 330 4778<tel:%2B44%20141%20330%204778>
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><mailto: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<mailto: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