PublicationBank - requirements evaluation
Roger Hyam
roger at TDWG.ORG
Fri Mar 24 10:54:52 CET 2006
Hi Donald,
This makes perfect sense to me but I'd like to introduce one comment
that might muddy the waters or help clear them.
We need an understanding of the granularity of a publication in any such
publication bank as I think 'publication' means different things to
different people. Looking at a monograph I have in front of me:
A Revision of Rhododendron VI subgenus Pentanthera (Sections
Sciadorhodion, Rhodora and Viscidula) W.S. Judd and K.A. Kron (1995)
Edinburgh Journal of Botany (ISSN 0960-4286), Volume 52, Number 1, Pages
1-54. On page 15 we have a good description of Rhododendron
schlippenbachii (a TaxonConcept as this is not a sp nov or comb nov).
The scope of publication bank could be at several levels:
1. LSID for the Journal/Book
2. LSID for the volume
3. LSID for the part
4. LSID for the article
5. LSID for the actual description on page 15.
I would argue quite strongly that taking it beyond level 1 is moderately
pointless as we can have a simple vocabulary of fields that can contain
nice integers to uniquely identify a place within a Journal (or book).
Taking it beyond 1 is also incredibly difficult. An analogy is the use
of postal or zip codes. The postal code refers to a block not a single
address and must be qualified by house and flat number (in the UK).
Perhaps PublicationBank should really be BookAndJournalBank but
identifying books and journals definitely feels to me like it is outside
the scope of TDWG and firmly in the scope of the library community.
I don't want to preempt the outcome of any white paper on the subject
but it may be that a simple applicability statement is required on how
to cite references electronically using existing numbering systems
accompanied by several integer fields (year, volume, part etc). i.e. not
relying on titles or author names. The above references is uniquely
identified by ISSN:0960-4286:52:1:1-54. It may be accompanied by the
text as well of course - for humans!
Just my 2 cents.
Roger
Donald Hobern wrote:
>
> Dear Anna,
>
> Thank you for making the connection between these two groups. I think
> it would help if I explained (particularly for the TDWG-LIT group)
> what questions are being addressed by the TDWG-GUID work under the
> general heading of "PublicationBank".
>
> During the first GUID workshop, we recognized that different classes
> of information require (for want of a better term) different
> /strengths/ of GUIDs. It is a great help for us to be able to
> recognise that two references are to the same piece of data because
> they use the same GUID to reference it. Let me give some examples.
>
> If I state that my taxon concept includes a specimen with LSID
> urn:lsid:my.org:specimen:123 and someone else also includes the same
> LSID in the list of specimens examined as part of their revision, it
> helps us to make some firm deductions about shared material. It seems
> reasonable that we will be able to associate identifiers with
> specimens in a way that ensures that the vast majority of specimens
> can receive a single identifier, meaning that all references to that
> identifier refer to that specimen /and that all references to that
> specimen use that identifier/. This second part is what I mean when I
> speak of a /strong/ identifier.
>
> Now consider the situation with taxon names. Many people are going to
> wish to refer to the same names (or nomenclatural acts). It will
> clearly be really valuable if we can work towards having a single GUID
> for each validly published name, so that we can maximize the
> interconnectedness of our data. If I say that refer to the name with
> the LSID urn:lsid:my.org:names:xyz and that LSID has data or metadata
> indicating that it relates to /Aus bus/ Jones, 2004, and you use the
> LSID urn:lsid:another.org:names.abc to refer to the same /Aus bus/
> Jones, 2004, then we are still left with the same string matching
> problems we have right now with names. It therefore seems sensible to
> work with the nomenclators as the "preferred" issuers of LSIDs for
> taxon names (recognising the gaps we have today for zoological names)
> and to encourage a move to using those identifiers whenever we wish to
> provide a secure reference to each name. (Of course this implies an
> urgent need for tools and services to make this easy.)
>
> Turning to taxon concepts, we had a long debate as to whether it was
> plausible to try to enforce the same degree of preferred issuers for
> LSIDs for taxon concepts. If I publish the first LSID-enabled
> revision of a group, I may need to assign LSIDs to refer to many
> different taxon concepts. Someone else databasing the taxonomy of the
> group will have a similar task. Unless we manage a central
> easy-to-search registry for people quickly to find out whether someone
> has already assigned an LSID to /Aus bus/ Jones, 2004 sensu Smith,
> 2006, we will never be able to make any assumptions based on the fact
> that I have used urn:lsid:my.org:concepts:123.1 and you have used
> urn:lsid:my.org:concepts:abc.001. Even though the two identifiers are
> different there is still a good chance that they may refer to the same
> concept (expressed as name-according to-publication). It seems much
> more reasonable instead to tackle the problem of getting really strong
> LSIDs for names (through the nomenclators) and doing the same thing
> for the taxonomic literature (through someone for whom we used the
> placeholder name "PublicationBank"). Any concept LSID can resolve
> through its metadata to two LSIDs, one for a name and one for a
> publication. Comparing concept LSIDs can therefore be based on the
> comparisons between these two more fundamental objects.
>
> So, from the standpoint of the GUID group, the requirement here is a
> very specific one. We need to find a way to manage assigning LSIDs to
> the publications that make up the taxonomic literature, so that we can
> all have what would amount to a master list of relevant publications.
> From this angle, "all" that is needed is a secure registry into which
> the bibliographic data can be stored, cleaned and assigned
> identifiers. Of course such a resource could also be an excellent
> place to register the location of online digital versions of each
> publication. At that point it becomes something even more valuable.
> On the other hand, considering it this way suggests that it may
> already naturally be addressed as part of the BHL or a similar effort,
> and part of what we would like to do is to identify any existing
> initiatives which may serve as a part or all of what is required for
> the LSID work.
>
> As I see it, the TDWG-LIT work gives a framework for the exchange of
> these bibliographic data, but we also need to understand the best way
> to get the kind of integrated biodiversity bibliography we would like
> to have.
>
> Does that all make sense?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Donald
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Hobern (dhobern at gbif.org <mailto:dhobern at gbif.org>)
> Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat
> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
> Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project
> [mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Anna Weitzman
> *Sent:* 21 March 2006 20:10
> *To:* TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: PublicationBank - requirements evaluation
>
>
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> You may not be aware that TDWG has a list devoted to taxonomic
> literature standards. It would be great if you (and anyone else
> interested) would join in that discussion ( TDWG Literature standards
> mailing list tdwg-lit at lists.tdwg.org <mailto:tdwg-lit at lists.tdwg.org>;
> sign up
> at http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-lit_lists.tdwg.org/general
> ) and add your expertise. The list has only been active since early
> February, and the complete correspondence is in the archives
> ( http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-lit_lists.tdwg.org/ ).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Anna L. Weitzman, Ph.D.
> Informatics Branch Chief, National Museum of Natural History
> Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012
> Natural History Building, Room W-623, MRC 136
> Washington, DC 20013-7012 U.S.A.
>
> phone: (202) 633-0846
> fax: (202) 786-3180
> email: weitzman at si.edu <mailto:weitzman at si.edu>
> INOTAXA - http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/bca/status.cfm
> electronic Biologia Centrali-Americana -
> http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/bca/
>
>
> >>> rhuber at WDC-MARE.ORG 21-Mar-2006 5:06:30 AM >>>
> Dear all,
>
> Below is a short 'survey' which hopefully can help to get an overview
> on how bibliographic information currently is stored in your databases.
> If you don't like to fill such forms, any other info on your current
> literature db is also welcome, just send it to me by email!
>
> The list maybe incomplete, if you think important questions are missing
> there just let me and the others know.
>
> I will try to sumarize the results on the wiki later.
>
> best regards, Robert
>
> 1) How is your literature database/module organised?
> - [ ]Database structure completely normalized
> - [ ]Database structure not/incomplete normalized
>
> 2) How do you hold your bibliographic information?
> - [ ]Complete set of Bib info (Author, Title,Source, Volume, Pages)
> - [ ]Incomplete set of Bib info
> - [ ]Abbreviations (e.g. Stafleu&Cowan)
> - [ ]Bib Info and Abbreviations
>
> - Specify which bibliographic fields you hold in your db:
> --[ ]Author(s)
> --[ ]Title
> --[ ]Source (Journal/Book)
> --[ ]Pages
> --[ ]Date(s)
> --[ ]Volume
> --[ ]Issue
> --[ ]Series
> --[ ]URL/GUID
> --[ ]Source Editors
> --[ ]Series Editors
> --[ ]Other:
>
> 3) How do you store author names:
> - [ ]Abbreviations (e.g. Brummitt & Powell)
> - [ ]Complete Name as String, one author per string
> - [ ]Complete Name as String, all authors in one string
> - [ ]Last Name, First Name separated
>
> 4) How do you store journal names/ other sources
> - [ ]Complete Name
> - [ ]Abbreviation
> - [ ]Both
> - [ ]If you hold abbreviations acc. to which standard?
>
> Dr. Robert Huber
> WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - _www.pangaea.de <http://www.pangaea.de/>_ ,
> _www.wdc-mare.org <http://www.wdc-mare.org/>_
> Stratigraphy.net - _www.stratigraphy.net <http://www.stratigraphy.net/>_
> _____________________________________________
> MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location)
> University Bremen
> Leobener Strasse
> POP 330 440
> 28359 Bremen
> Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505
> e-mail _rhuber@@wdc-mare.org <mailto:rhuber@@wdc-mare.org>_ ,
> _robert.huber at stratigraphy.net <mailto:robert.huber at stratigraphy.net>_
>
--
-------------------------------------
Roger Hyam
Technical Architect
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
http://www.tdwg.org
roger at tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------
--------------040306020200020104000202
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Hi Donald,<br>
<br>
This makes perfect sense to me but I'd like to introduce one comment
that might muddy the waters or help clear them.<br>
<br>
We need an understanding of the granularity of a publication in any
such publication bank as I think 'publication' means different things
to different people. Looking at a monograph I have in front of me:<br>
<br>
A Revision of Rhododendron VI subgenus Pentanthera (Sections
Sciadorhodion, Rhodora and Viscidula) W.S. Judd and K.A. Kron (1995)
Edinburgh Journal of Botany (ISSN 0960-4286), Volume 52, Number 1,
Pages 1-54. On page 15 we have a good description of Rhododendron
schlippenbachii (a TaxonConcept as this is not a sp nov or comb nov).<br>
<br>
The scope of publication bank could be at several levels:<br>
<ol>
<li>LSID for the Journal/Book <br>
</li>
<li>LSID for the volume</li>
<li>LSID for the part</li>
<li>LSID for the article</li>
<li>LSID for the actual description on page 15.</li>
</ol>
I would argue quite strongly that taking it beyond level 1 is
moderately pointless as we can have a simple vocabulary of fields that
can contain nice integers to uniquely identify a place within a Journal
(or book). Taking it beyond 1 is also incredibly difficult. An analogy
is the use of postal or zip codes. The postal code refers to
a block not a single address and must be qualified by house and flat
number (in the UK). <br>
<br>
Perhaps PublicationBank should really be BookAndJournalBank but
identifying books and journals definitely feels to me like it is
outside the scope of TDWG and firmly in the scope of the library
community.<br>
<br>
I don't want to preempt the outcome of any white paper on the subject
but it may be that a simple applicability statement is required on how
to cite references electronically using existing numbering systems
accompanied by several integer fields (year, volume, part etc). i.e.
not relying on titles or author names. The above references is uniquely
identified by ISSN:0960-4286:52:1:1-54. It may be accompanied by the
text as well of course - for humans!<br>
<br>
Just my 2 cents.<br>
<br>
Roger<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Donald Hobern wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20060324074157.A5410230D89 at gerula.gbif.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="Street">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place">
<o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"><!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-believe-normal-left:yes;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if mso 9]-->
<style>
p.MsoNormal
{margin-left:3.0pt;}
</style><!--[endif]-->
</o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType></o:SmartTagType>
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Dear Anna,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Thank you
for making the connection
between these two groups. I think it would help if I explained
(particularly for the TDWG-LIT group) what questions are being
addressed by the
TDWG-GUID work under the general heading of “PublicationBank”.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">During the
first GUID workshop, we recognized
that different classes of information require (for want of a better
term)
different <i><span style="font-style: italic;">strengths</span></i> of
GUIDs. It
is a great help for us to be able to recognise that two references are
to the
same piece of data because they use the same GUID to reference it. Let
me
give some examples.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">If I state
that my taxon concept includes
a specimen with LSID urn:lsid:my.org:specimen:123 and someone else also
includes the same LSID in the list of specimens examined as part of
their
revision, it helps us to make some firm deductions about shared
material. It
seems reasonable that we will be able to associate identifiers with
specimens
in a way that ensures that the vast majority of specimens can receive a
single
identifier, meaning that all references to that identifier refer to
that
specimen <i><span style="font-style: italic;">and that all references
to that
specimen use that identifier</span></i>. This second part is what I
mean
when I speak of a <i><span style="font-style: italic;">strong</span></i>
identifier.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Now consider
the situation with taxon
names. Many people are going to wish to refer to the same names (or
nomenclatural acts). It will clearly be really valuable if we can work
towards having a single GUID for each validly published name, so that
we can maximize
the interconnectedness of our data. If I say that refer to the name
with
the LSID urn:lsid:my.org:names:xyz and that LSID has data or metadata
indicating that it relates to <i><span style="font-style: italic;">Aus
bus</span></i>
Jones, 2004, and you use the LSID urn:lsid:another.org:names.abc to
refer to
the same <i><span style="font-style: italic;">Aus bus</span></i>
Jones, 2004,
then we are still left with the same string matching problems we have
right now
with names. It therefore seems sensible to work with the nomenclators
as
the “preferred” issuers of LSIDs for taxon names (recognising the
gaps we have today for zoological names) and to encourage a move to
using those
identifiers whenever we wish to provide a secure reference to each
name. (Of
course this implies an urgent need for tools and services to make this
easy.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Turning to
taxon concepts, we had a long
debate as to whether it was plausible to try to enforce the same degree
of preferred
issuers for LSIDs for taxon concepts. If I publish the first
LSID-enabled
revision of a group, I may need to assign LSIDs to refer to many
different
taxon concepts. Someone else databasing the taxonomy of the group will
have a similar task. Unless we manage a central easy-to-search
registry
for people quickly to find out whether someone has already assigned an
LSID to <i><span style="font-style: italic;">Aus bus</span></i> Jones,
2004 sensu Smith, 2006, we
will never be able to make any assumptions based on the fact that I
have used
urn:lsid:my.org:concepts:123.1 and you have used
urn:lsid:my.org:concepts:abc.001.
Even though the two identifiers are different there is still a good
chance
that they may refer to the same concept (expressed as name-according
to-publication).
It seems much more reasonable instead to tackle the problem of getting
really strong LSIDs for names (through the nomenclators) and doing the
same
thing for the taxonomic literature (through someone for whom we used
the
placeholder name “PublicationBank”). Any concept LSID can
resolve through its metadata to two LSIDs, one for a name and one for a
publication. Comparing concept LSIDs can therefore be based on the
comparisons between these two more fundamental objects.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">So, from the
standpoint of the GUID group,
the requirement here is a very specific one. We need to find a way to
manage assigning LSIDs to the publications that make up the taxonomic
literature, so that we can all have what would amount to a master list
of
relevant publications. From this angle, “all” that is needed
is a secure registry into which the bibliographic data can be stored,
cleaned
and assigned identifiers. Of course such a resource could also be an
excellent place to register the location of online digital versions of
each publication.
At that point it becomes something even more valuable. On the other
hand, considering it this way suggests that it may already naturally be
addressed as part of the BHL or a similar effort, and part of what we
would
like to do is to identify any existing initiatives which may serve as a
part or
all of what is required for the LSID work.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">As I see it,
the TDWG-LIT work gives a
framework for the exchange of these bibliographic data, but we also
need to
understand the best way to get the kind of integrated biodiversity
bibliography
we would like to have.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Does that
all make sense?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Donald<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Donald Hobern (<a href="mailto:dhobern at gbif.org">dhobern at gbif.org</a>)<br>
Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability <br>
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat <br>
Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Copenhagen</st1:City>,
<st1:country-region w:st="on">Denmark</st1:country-region></st1:place><br>
Tel: +45-35321483 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Mobile</st1:City></st1:place>:
+45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------</span></font><font
face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><font
face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">
<hr tabindex="-1" align="center" size="2" width="100%"></span></font></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><b><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; font-weight: bold;">From:</span></font></b><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma;"> <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project</st1:PersonName>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU">mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU</a>] <b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">On
Behalf Of </span></b>Anna Weitzman<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> 21 March 2006
20:10<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU">TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re:
PublicationBank -
requirements evaluation</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font
face="Microsoft Sans Serif" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Microsoft Sans Serif";">Dear
Robert,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font
face="Microsoft Sans Serif" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Microsoft Sans Serif";">You
may not be aware that TDWG has a list devoted to taxonomic literature
standards. It would be great if you (and anyone else interested) would
join in that discussion ( TDWG Literature standards mailing list <a
href="mailto:tdwg-lit at lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-lit at lists.tdwg.org</a>;
sign up
at <a
href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-lit_lists.tdwg.org/general">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-lit_lists.tdwg.org/general</a>
) and add your expertise. The list has only been active since early
February, and the complete correspondence is in the archives ( <a
href="http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-lit_lists.tdwg.org/">http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-lit_lists.tdwg.org/</a>
).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font
face="Microsoft Sans Serif" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Microsoft Sans Serif";"> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font
face="Microsoft Sans Serif" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Microsoft Sans Serif";"> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font
face="Microsoft Sans Serif" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Microsoft Sans Serif";"> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font
face="Microsoft Sans Serif" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Microsoft Sans Serif";">Anna
L. Weitzman, Ph.D.<br>
Informatics Branch Chief, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">National</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Museum</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> of
Natural History<br>
Smithsonian Institution, <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on">PO
Box</st1:Street> 37012</st1:address><br>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Natural</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceName w:st="on">History</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType
w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>,
Room W-623, MRC 136<br>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Washington</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">DC</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">20013-7012</st1:PostalCode>
<st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.A.</st1:country-region></st1:place><br>
<br>
phone: (202) 633-0846<br>
fax: (202) 786-3180<br>
email: <a href="mailto:weitzman at si.edu">weitzman at si.edu</a><br>
INOTAXA - <a
href="http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/bca/status.cfm">http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/bca/status.cfm</a><br>
electronic Biologia Centrali-Americana - <a
href="http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/bca/">http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/bca/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rhuber at WDC-MARE.ORG">rhuber at WDC-MARE.ORG</a> 21-Mar-2006 5:06:30 AM >>><br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
Below is a short 'survey' which hopefully can help to get an overview<br>
on how bibliographic information currently is stored in your databases.<br>
If you don't like to fill such forms, any other info on your current<br>
literature db is also welcome, just send it to me by email!<br>
<br>
The list maybe incomplete, if you think important questions are missing<br>
there just let me and the others know.<br>
<br>
I will try to sumarize the results on the wiki later.<br>
<br>
best regards, Robert<br>
<br>
1) How is your literature database/module organised?<br>
- [ ]Database structure completely normalized<br>
- [ ]Database structure not/incomplete normalized<br>
<br>
2) How do you hold your bibliographic information?<br>
- [ ]Complete set of Bib info (Author, Title,Source, Volume, Pages)<br>
- [ ]Incomplete set of Bib info<br>
- [ ]Abbreviations (e.g. Stafleu&Cowan)<br>
- [ ]Bib Info and Abbreviations<br>
<br>
- Specify which bibliographic fields you hold in your db:<br>
--[ ]Author(s)<br>
--[ ]Title<br>
--[ ]Source (Journal/Book)<br>
--[ ]Pages<br>
--[ ]Date(s)<br>
--[ ]Volume<br>
--[ ]Issue<br>
--[ ]Series<br>
--[ ]URL/GUID<br>
--[ ]Source Editors<br>
--[ ]Series Editors<br>
--[ ]Other:<br>
<br>
3) How do you store author names:<br>
- [ ]Abbreviations (e.g. Brummitt & Powell)<br>
- [ ]Complete Name as String, one author per string<br>
- [ ]Complete Name as String, all authors in one string<br>
- [ ]Last Name, First Name separated<br>
<br>
4) How do you store journal names/ other sources<br>
- [ ]Complete Name<br>
- [ ]Abbreviation<br>
- [ ]Both<br>
- [ ]If you hold abbreviations acc. to which standard?<br>
<br>
Dr. Robert Huber<br>
WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - <u><a href="http://www.pangaea.de/">www.pangaea.de</a></u>
, <u><a href="http://www.wdc-mare.org/">www.wdc-mare.org</a></u> <br>
Stratigraphy.net - <u><a href="http://www.stratigraphy.net/">www.stratigraphy.net</a></u>
<br>
_____________________________________________<br>
MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location)<br>
University <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bremen</st1:place></st1:State><br>
Leobener Strasse<br>
POP 330 440<br>
28359 <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bremen</st1:place></st1:State><br>
Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505<br>
e-mail <u><a href="mailto:rhuber@@wdc-mare.org">rhuber@@wdc-mare.org</a></u>
, <u><a href="mailto:robert.huber at stratigraphy.net">robert.huber at stratigraphy.net</a></u>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-------------------------------------
Roger Hyam
Technical Architect
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tdwg.org">http://www.tdwg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:roger at tdwg.org">roger at tdwg.org</a>
+44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list