[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Aug 25 19:51:06 CDT 2014


Verifiability should be the main criterion, not "reputation". An annotation should be backed up with evidence

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 26/8/14, Dean Pentcheff <pentcheff at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
 To: "Roderic Page" <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
 Cc: "Chuck Miller" <chuck.miller at mobot.org>, "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Bob Mesibov" <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
 Received: Tuesday, 26 August, 2014, 12:31 PM
 
 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.
 >>
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 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