[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Roderic Page Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
Tue Aug 26 12:19:17 CDT 2014


Hi Rich,

To quote from http://wiki.filteredpush.org/wiki/ it’s goal is

"to connect remote sites where annotations can be generated with the authoritative databases of the collections holding the vouchers to which those annotations apply”

This is pretty much exactly NOT the model I’m advocating. I regard FilteredPush as “sticky notes” on an authoritative database, with rules for processing annotations. This is not the “social data” model.

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 26 Aug 2014, at 17:55, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>> wrote:

Guys,

You do realize that all of this is the foundation of FilteredPush, right?  It was designed to allow both structured (i.e., machine-actionable/automated) annotations and text-based (i.e., for human eyeballs) comments.

The tricky part is not the mechanism (it already exists).  The tricky part is the process of automating the structured annotations.  Should the system ALWAYS accept structured annotations and over-write existing data?  Or should it be moderated?  Or, should there be some sort of user model that allows people to earn some level of reliability, and their annotations are accepted without review; whereas other annotations must be "approved".

There are a million ways it can be done.  Personally, I think some fundamentals are:
1) Information should NEVER be obliterated.  That is, a field is never simply over-written with new information; the old information is always retrievable.
2) There needs to be a method to represent the "best" information.  For example, a single specimen/occurrence may have multiple competing taxonomic determinations.  All determinations should be visible, but it's helpful to the non-expert user if one of them can be represented as the "correct" (per someone) determination.
3) Over-reliance on non-automated, human-mitigated processes = DEATH.  This is because everyone is already too busy.

Including me.

Aloha,
Rich



-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
Of Roderic Page
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:49 PM
To: Lyubomir Penev
Cc: Chuck Miller; TAXACOM; Bob Mesibov
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List

Hi Lyubo,

Yes, you could have structured annotations and free text for comments. But
what I’d like to avoid is the idea that simply putting a comment system onto a
database is the answer. It’s easy to do that (I use Disqus on my blog, and on
BioStor and BioNames, for example), but that doesn’t get us terribly far
(useful as people’s comments are).

If we focus on the structured annotations, and the idea that multiple
authorities can write about the same thing, then this leads inevitably to the
idea of having a single, global annotation store that holds data about all kinds
of things that we care about.

This was what I was trying to articulate in
http://iphylo.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/rethinking-annotating-biodiversity-
data.html  It can be done in a way that makes almost no demands on data
providers at all, and if it’s done cleverly it will (as a side effect) provide a
potentially powerful database we can use to ask some of the bigger
questions about biodiversity data.

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 26 Aug 2014, at 08:56, Lyubomir Penev
<lyubo.penev at gmail.com<mailto:lyubo.penev at gmail.com>> wrote:

Rod,

Your proposal is indeed elegant, but what about using two separate general
types of annotations, e.g.: (1) Corrections/Additions and (2) Comments
("sticky notes")?

The Type 1 (Annotations=Corrections/Additions) can go straight to
improve/amend the data (after approval or not is a different story), for
example adding geocoordinates for a well-known locality or adding a
collector's name missing on label data but known from other source, etc.

Annotations Type 2 (Annotations=Comments) could be associated with the
original data or with Type 1 Annotations, e.g., "velvet worms cannot live in
the ocean, correct geocoordinates for this locality", or "this locality might be
wrongly spelled", etc.

No need to explain that Type 2 annotations could be based on a rich
controlled vocabulary of statements, besides the free text option, which will
allow machine processing of a part of the process, including automated
verification of the original data in some particular cases. For example,
annotation of the kind  "Now in different genus"  could automatically query a
trusted taxonomy source (CoL, GNUB, etc,) and display all possible versions
and validity status of that name and its combinations.

Regards,
Lyubomir




On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Chuck Miller
<Chuck.Miller at mobot.org<mailto:Chuck.Miller at mobot.org>> wrote:
Rod,
I see what you are thinking.

I'm thinking too much about the alternate views that seem to always come
up in comments about taxonomic data, even right here on Taxacom.  So, an
annotation thread could be something like:
"Now in different genus"
"No way, respectfully what century are you from?. It's not even a species."
"Maybe they meant Africa."
"Yeh, in Namibia it was split and revised to Y, I think."
"The phylogeny for Y is totally different. It's now in Z. Does no one read my
work? Taxonomic tyranny!"
"Consider this DOI that refers to new collections and it seems to contradict all
y'all."

What does "social" annotation turn into?  Lots of useful information but if it
starts being contradictory or overlapping, can it be databased and which
contradiction is the primary?  Hopefully, annotation of localities could be
straightforward as in your example.

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