[Taxacom] Chameleons, GBIF, and the Red List
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Aug 25 19:50:41 CDT 2014
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