[Taxacom] GBIF & BHL
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Oct 13 17:24:46 CDT 2014
2014
Except that the person bringing these things together needs to know what they are doing (in the sense of being an expert in the taxonomic group and so being able to distinguish good data from bad)
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 14/10/14, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] GBIF & BHL
To: "Rod Page" <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>, "faunaplan at googlemail.com" <faunaplan at googlemail.com>, "Bob Mesibov" <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
Cc: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Tuesday, 14 October, 2014, 11:09 AM
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
_______________________________________________
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