<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks, Rob.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I obviously have to admit to being well out of touch with what is going on in these ontology discussions. However part of the reason for my plea is that I think the basic business of facilitating data publishing and discovery is currently being harmed by the Darwin Core “classes”. It is much better to proceed with the ontology work and to leave significant flexibility in the publishing of data from real systems. I feel confident this will allow rapid progress on all fronts. Right now we are putting barriers in the way of content mobilisation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Donald<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>----------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - <a href="mailto:dhobern@gbif.org"><span style='color:blue'>dhobern@gbif.org</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>Global Biodiversity Information Facility <a href="http://www.gbif.org/"><span style='color:blue'>http://www.gbif.org/</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=DA style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>Tel: +45 3532 1471 Mob: +45 2875 1471 Fax: +45 2875 1480<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>----------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Robert Guralnick<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, October 13, 2013 10:11 PM<br><b>To:</b> Roderic Page<br><b>Cc:</b> TDWG Content Mailing List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [tdwg-content] A plea around basisOfRecord (Was: Proposed new Darwin Core terms - abundance, abundanceAsPercent)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> Rod --- There are a couple different conceptions of interrelationships between Darwin Core "classes", including the Darwin Core Semantic Web effort led by Steve Baskauf and Cam Web, and the BiSciCol project. Darwin Core SW is here: <a href="https://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/">https://code.google.com/p/darwin-sw/</a> and the BiSciCol "take" is here: <a href="http://biscicol.blogspot.com/2013_03_01_archive.html">http://biscicol.blogspot.com/2013_03_01_archive.html</a>. The Darwin Core SW version includes new classes not in Darwin Core, while BiSciCol uses only existing class terms and a very simple set of predicates. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> I think in many people's view, including those of the authors of the above (although I hate speaking for them), neither DW-SW or DW-BiSciCol may be really able to handle the current needs for linking resources together effectively. There has been a major effort to refocus away from jury-rigging Darwin Core to try to serve in a more semantic framework and pushing towards other solutions that align biodiversity standards more with the OBO Foundry (<a href="http://www.obofoundry.org/">http://www.obofoundry.org/</a>). The Biocollections Ontology (BCO; <a href="https://code.google.com/p/bco/">https://code.google.com/p/bco/</a>) represents (what I hope) is a clear rethinking of the challenge that does connect back to the Darwin Core.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best, Rob<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Roderic Page <<a href="mailto:r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk" target="_blank">r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I've always been somewhat puzzled by the disconnect between the TDWG LSID ontology (e.g., <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonConcept" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonConcept</a> ) which has a rich set of classes and links between those classes, and Darwin Core (e.g., <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/type-vocabulary/index.htm" target="_blank">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/type-vocabulary/index.htm</a> ) which overlaps with this vocabulary and, in my opinion, does a worse job in some areas, notably taxon names and concepts. Maybe the LSID vocabulary suffered from the limited uptake of LSIDs (apart from the nomenclators and Catalogue of Life) or from the complexity of dealing with RDF, but it seems that much of the essential work was done when Roger Hyam created that ontology.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>What might help is a way to visualise the TDWG LSID ontology in terms of the interconnections between the different classes. I'm not aware of such a visualisation (nor of an equivalent one for the Darwin Core classes). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In any event, it seems odd to have two distinct ontologies that are both in use, and which overlap so significantly.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Rod<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 13 Oct 2013, at 16:12, Donald Hobern [GBIF] wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It’s been a couple of weeks but I said I’d try to write something about a more general concern I have around the way we use basisOfRecord and dcterms:type to hold values like occurrence, event and materialSample. This is something that has concerned me for years and that, I worry, is making everything we all do much messier than it need be.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I believe that the way we have come to use Darwin Core basisOfRecord is confused and unhelpful. I really wish we used Darwin Core like this:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>1.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>basisOfRecord should be used ONLY to indicate the type of evidence that lies behind a record – a key aspect of whether the record is likely to be useful for different purposes</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>2.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>basisOfRecord values should be taken from a hierarchical vocabulary with three main branches:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:1.0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>a.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>“specimens” (i.e. biological material that can be reviewed), with a hierarchy of subordinate values such as “pinnedSpecimen”, “herbariumSheet”, etc.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:1.0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>b.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>derived, non-biological evidence (not sure what name), with a hierarchy of subordinate values such as “dnaSequence”, “soundRecording”, “stillImage”, etc.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:1.0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>c.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>asserted observations with no revisitable evidence other than the authority of the observer</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>3.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>TDWG should deliver a basic ontology in the form of a graph of key relationships between the most significant conceptual entities in our world (TaxonName, TaxonConcept, Identification, Collection, Specimen, Locality, Agent, …)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>4.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This ontology should not attempt to map all the complexity of biodiversity-related data – just provide the high-level map and key relationships (TaxonConcept hasName TaxonName, Specimen heldIn Collection, etc.) – it should leave definition of other properties as a separate, open-ended activity for the community</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>5.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This ontology should be reviewed at regular intervals and versioned as necessary to address critical gaps – provided that backwards compatibility is maintained (splitting a class into multiple consitituent classes probably won’t break anything, so start simple)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>6.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The Darwin Core vocabulary should be published as a flat, open-ended list of terms with clear definitions that can be freely combined as columns in denormalised records</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>7.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Every Darwin Core term should be documented to be tightly associated with a single, fixed class in the ontology (e.g. scientificName and specificEpithet are ALWAYS considered to be properties of a TaxonName whether or not that TaxonName object is clearly referenced or separated out)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>8.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Every data publisher should be encouraged to share all relevant data elements in their source data in the most convenient normalised or denormalised form, provided they use the recognised Darwin Core properties for elements that match the definition for those terms, and provided they give some metadata for other elements. Possible forms include:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:1.0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>a.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A completely hierarchical, ABCD-like, XML representation</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:1.0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>b.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A completely flat denormalised, simple-DwC-like, CVS representation, if the data includes no elements with higher cardinality</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:1.0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>c.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A set of flat, relational, CVS representations, as with Darwin Core Archive star schemas, but with freedom to have more complex graphed relationships as needed</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>9.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Each table of CVS data in 8b and 8c is a view that corresponds to a linear subgraph of the TDWG ontology, identified by the classes of the DwC properties used – this allows us to infer the “shape” of the data in terms of the ontology</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>10.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If we do this, we do not need to worry about whether a record is a checklist record, an event, an occurrence, a material sample or whatever else, although we could use the dcterms: type property, or some new property, to hold this detail as a further clue to intent and possible use for the record</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Here is an example. In today’s terms, what sort of DwC record is this? Do I really have to replace “recordId” with “eventId”, “occurrenceId” or similar? And which should I choose?</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>recordId, decimalLatitude, decimalLongitude, coordinatePrecision, eventDate, scientificName, individualCount</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think it is clear that this record tells us that there was a recording event at a particular time and place where someone or some process recorded a given number of individual organisms which were identified as representatives of a taxon concept with a name corresponding to the supplied scientific name. In other words this gives us some properties from a subgraph that might include, say, instances of TDWG Event, Locality, Date, Occurrence, Identification, TaxonConcept and TaxonName classes. None of these is specifically referenced but we can unambiguously fold the flat record onto the ontology. We can moreover then use the combination of supplied elements to decide whether this record would be of interest to GBIF, a national information facility, a tool cataloguing uses of scientific names, etc. The same will also apply if multiple CVS tables are provided as in 8c.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have thought about this for a long time and cannot yet think of an area in which this would not work efficiently – and unambiguously – for all concerned. There are some cases where multiple instances of the same ontology class would be referenced within a single record, which may mean more care is needed by the publisher (e.g. if an insect specimen record includes a reference to a host plant). There may be cases where automated review of the data indicates that there are impossible combinations or ambiguities that the publisher must resolve. However I believe we could use this approach to generalise all mobilisation and consumption of biodiversity data (including all the things we have addressed under ABCD, SDD, TCS, Plinian Core, etc.) and to make it genuinely possible for any data holder to share all the data they have in a form that makes sense to them, while allowing others to consume these data intelligently.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Right now, I think our confused use of basisOfRecord is almost the only thing that stops us from exploring this. We have blurred the question of the evidence for a record, with the question of the “shape” of the record as a subgraph. These are different things. Separating them will allow us to get away from some of our unresolvable debates and open up the doors to much simpler data sharing and reuse.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks,</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Donald</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>----------------------------------------------------------------------</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>Donald Hobern - GBIF Director - </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="mailto:dhobern@gbif.org" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas'>dhobern@gbif.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>Global Biodiversity Information Facility </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="http://www.gbif.org/" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas'>http://www.gbif.org/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=DA style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>GBIF Secretariat, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>Tel: <a href="tel:%2B45%203532%201471" target="_blank">+45 3532 1471</a> Mob: <a href="tel:%2B45%202875%201471" target="_blank">+45 2875 1471</a> Fax: <a href="tel:%2B45%202875%201480" target="_blank">+45 2875 1480</a></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>----------------------------------------------------------------------</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>---------------------------------------------------------<br>Roderic Page<br>Professor of Taxonomy<br>Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine<br>College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences<br>Graham Kerr Building<br>University of Glasgow<br>Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK<br><br>Email: <a href="mailto:r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk" target="_blank">r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk</a><br>Tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%20141%20330%204778" target="_blank">+44 141 330 4778</a><br>Fax: <a href="tel:%2B44%20141%20330%202792" target="_blank">+44 141 330 2792</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>Skype: rdmpage<br>Facebook: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>LinkedIn: <a href="http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage" target="_blank">http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage</a><br>Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/rdmpage" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/rdmpage</a><br>Blog: <a href="http://iphylo.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://iphylo.blogspot.com</a><br>Home page: <a href="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html" target="_blank">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_D._M._Page" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderic_D._M._Page</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>Citations: <a href="http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ" target="_blank">http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>ORCID: <a href="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767" target="_blank">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<br>tdwg-content mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>