uBio

[David Remsen]

Dr. Thompson

I'm a bit stunned by the tone of your mail.

The premise of uBio is fairly simple.  Libraries like ours need to be
part of the discussions in the global taxonomic data initiatives. We
require taxonomic information in our library to enable our patrons to
be able to locate the information they are looking for within our
electronic collections.   The solution we require doesn't exist so we
will try to demonstrate it. That is the short story.

When someone can't find the article we published in 1951 on how to
narcotize the worm Pectinaria gouldi because it was called Cistendes
gouldii in the original article then I have a problem.  We spent time
and effort digitizing, parsing and developing this online document.
Yet it's contents remain inaccessible.

Multiply this by ten thousand across thirty electronic resources in our
one library.  Take a look at other efforts with similar problems.  In
San Diego, a library has digitized the reports of the voyages of the
HMS Challenger.   There are thousands of pages with tens of thousands
of names all linked to data that depend on those names for any
biological relevance.  The time and effort that went into archiving the
fulltext articles in JSTOR.org is enormous yet much of the older
material remains inaccessible simply because their is no contemporary
context to the nomenclature.  Right now I am reading a XML document,
created at considerable expense by the AMNH on The Birds of the Belgian
Congo written in 1932.  At least half of the bird names in this
document do not appear in any of the 8 global bird lists I have seen.
  Who can help with such matters?  Is this a library problem or can we
try to reach out to a community of experts?

You say that few organizations support taxonomic and nomenclatural
research yet I and many others have an obvious problem that these
communities could help to address.  Why haven't they?  I know if I had
a solution that I would support those who provided it.

One reason I believe is that there isn't a useful way to connect these
communities.  When trying to solve this problem for our library I found
I was duplicating the same solution over and over across many
applications in a very manual way, using freely available sources of
names (like ITIS, the SP2000 CD, fishbase, etc.)  We decided to try to
create a taxonomic thesaurus linked to a network interface that would
allow us to somehow 'plug' our applications into this database in a
more automated way.  We felt that if we could ease the means to access
this information in a way that was relevant to us then perhaps it would
be useful to other libraries.  If it was useful to other libraries then
perhaps we could find a way to more directly support the taxonomic
community.   I'll repeat.  Support the taxonomic community.

We feel that if we can demonstrate a means to more effectively link our
communities together that there will be an increased recognition and
support for taxonomy and nomenclature because our needs are not
atypical.  The fact is that taxonomic information is directly relevant
to almost all of the information resources in our library and our
library isn't unique in that respect.  What is missing is the means to
utilize and demonstrate this.  Our goal is to create demonstrable tools
that show how we can use this information if it's provided in a
flexible service.

We have been trying to locate sources of names to show that this sort
of service can work at scale and that it can provide the means to
account for how and whose names are used within this service.  A
comprehensive scale to the data is required if it is to have broad
utility.  The fact is that it is easier to account for how this data is
utilized within a system like this.  Our interest is not to represent
what you do as ours but rather be able to channel this information in
such a way as to provide a relevant applicable utility.  I imagine
there is at least one fly mentioned in the Challenger Report.  I can
imagine an interested user wishing they could retrieve all Insect
references from that document.  I know how I could build the technical
side of providing that accessibility.  But can I somehow put you into
the equation or not?   I believe if I can then I (and that user) can
support what you do.   Our goal is to build, not burn, bridges Dr.
Thompson.  If you can go to your supporters and demonstrate that what
you do is incorporated into something used by N number of  libraries,
museums, and schools then I think that works to your benefit.  If you
can find a way to get your nickel per name out of them then that would
be even better.

What you and others do is important and has value.  What we are doing
is trying to increase that value and that relevance.  The tools that I
need for what I do in our library are not there.  If we can build them
we can then lay them out in front of you and others and say "There,
this is what we were talking about."

We are making efforts to work with the taxonomic community upon which
we depend in the following ways:

1. We have presented our problems and proposed solutions to numerous
taxonomic data groups.
2. We have offered any taxonomic data we collect to GBIF under the
auspices of the ECAT program
3. We are developing cross platform taxonomic tools for managing and
editing taxonomic listings.
4. We attend relevant meetings and workshops.
5. Digitize Neaves Nomenclator Zoologicus (under the auspices of the
Zoological Society of London).

There really isn't any reason to demonize what we are trying to do.
I'll leave it for you and others to judge whether the tools we build
provide a service to you or not.  It seems you are a bit premature in
your judgment since we are still in development but so be it.  What is
important from my perspective is not your assessment but our intention
which is to bridge two communities which could mutually  benefit from
some interaction.



_______________________________________________
David Remsen
uBio Project Developer
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA 02543