[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Dean Pentcheff pentcheff at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 19:31:06 CDT 2014


Yes. At some level, we choose to adopt, examine, or reject proposed changes
based on the proposer's reputation (whether the proposer is a person or an
institution). If proposers are people, something like ORCID would be ideal.

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


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
wrote:

>  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>
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 23:28
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
> To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Cc: Roderic Page <roderic.page at glasgow.ac.uk>, Bob Mesibov <
> mesibov at southcom.com.au>, Chuck Miller <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
> dpentche at nhm.org
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Roderic Page <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>
>> Tel:  +44 141 330 4778 <+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>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>  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
> dpentche at nhm.org
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Roderic Page <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>
>> 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