[Taxacom] GBIF & BHL

Roderic Page Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
Mon Oct 13 17:09:29 CDT 2014


Hi Bob,

Regarding "Now what"? I guess the answer depends on the properties if the data. Currently I'm working with data from GBIF, GenBank, and BOLD. There is a lot of overlap (GBIF may have a voucher for a DNA barcode that also appears in GenBank). Typically each database adds something to our information about that specimen, for example GenBank gives us links to literature publishing the sequence, BOLD often has images, as well as a taxonomic assignment to a BIN. Sometimes BOLD lacks geographical coordinates, but GBIF has them (and visa versa). I think a strong case can be made for the utility of bringing this information together, especially as no one data source has all the relevant information.

Regards

Rod

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

_____________________________
From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au<mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au>>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 21:57
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] GBIF & BHL
To: Rod Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk<mailto:r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>>, <faunaplan at googlemail.com<mailto:faunaplan at googlemail.com>>
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>


Rod, your suggestion is a good one but doesn't help us understand what happens next.Whether or not biodiversity data sources are machine readable, there is no reason for data providers to combine what they have with what others have provided. The result is that we have separate but overlapping data sources with differing content. My favourite example is Australian millipede records. These are available online from ALA/GBIF, various museum catalogues and as (machine parse-able) CSVs on the Millipedes of Australia website. The best and most complete source is MoA, which is not pointed to (or used) by ALA/GBIF.A 'meta-aggregator' could pull together all the machine-readable records for a particular species from all available online sources. Now what?-- Dr Robert MesibovHonorary Research AssociateQueen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, andSchool of Land and Food, University of TasmaniaHome contact:PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316(03) 64371195; 61<tel:64371195;%2061> 3 64371195

Rod, your suggestion is a good one but doesn't help us understand what happens next.

Whether or not biodiversity data sources are machine readable, there is no reason for data providers to combine what they have with what others have provided. The result is that we have separate but overlapping data sources with differing content. My favourite example is Australian millipede records. These are available online from ALA/GBIF, various museum catalogues and as (machine parse-able) CSVs on the Millipedes of Australia website. The best and most complete source is MoA, which is not pointed to (or used) by ALA/GBIF.

A 'meta-aggregator' could pull together all the machine-readable records for a particular species from all available online sources. Now what?
--
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania
Home contact:
PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
(03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195



More information about the Taxacom mailing list