Hi Jim,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for keeping in good humor. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>I was trying to get my head around the TaxonOccurrence standard so I could rewrite my observation records,</div><div>and was hoping on finding some examples. That experience, and some related issues, made me a little irritable,</div>
<div>for that I am sorry.</div><div><br></div><div>It might be useful to make up a test set. It does not even need to be real. In my experience, this is where</div><div>you really start to see if the standard does what you want it to do. Many times I have thought that I had</div>
<div>everything figured out, only to discover after loading data into my triple store that something will not work</div><div>or something that used to work was now broken by the addition of a new feature.</div><div><br></div>
<div>I am not bothered by the idea of branding, it just seemed that the it was being confused with the goal of</div><div>persistence in what seemed to be a unproductive thread.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again for being amused, tolerant and insightful. :-)</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Pete</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Jim Croft <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com">jim.croft@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Can't let this great opportunity pass... :)<br>
<br>
It is not just us. It is the regrettable human condition. See also:<br>
<a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216600011" target="_blank">http://www.informationweek.com/news/infrastructure/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216600011</a><br>
<br>
<diatribe_alert/><br>
<br>
One of the intriguing and enigmatic things about TDWG is that it does<br>
not seem to respect its own standards, preferring to invent another<br>
set rather than fix or enhance what is already there. More than the<br>
'not invented here' syndrome, we have to deal with 'not invented here<br>
this week' and the user is left with the impression of a happy<br>
self-absorbed group chasing a flock of flitting butterflies - 'oh,<br>
that's pretty, I will try and catch that one'. Yep, just the human<br>
condition. In another context, Roger H,<br>
<a href="http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/346" target="_blank">http://www.hyam.net/blog/archives/346</a>, has provided the best<br>
description of TDWG and its standards I think I have ever heard: "It<br>
is kind of like the guy selling seagulls on the beach. You give him £5<br>
and he points into the sky and says 'That one is yours'. Yes he is<br>
providing a service but the relationship that counts is the one<br>
between you and the gull." This is both profound and frightening in<br>
how close it is to reality.<br>
<br>
On the complexity and costs of implementation, you are absolutely<br>
right. Taxonomic database standards have moved out of the domain of<br>
taxonomists, they no longer understand what we are talking about<br>
(hell, I no longer understand what we are talking about. And the rest<br>
of you? c'mon now, be honest... :) and we are left with this<br>
relationship of 'trust us' paternalism that I do not think is all that<br>
healthy - we all trust and respect Microsoft, right?. It is getting<br>
increasingly difficult give advice to a bod with a beat up PC in a<br>
developing country on what they should do - the alphabet soup<br>
surrounding GUIDS and the like just does not cut it when the mind set<br>
is an Excel spreadsheet with a bunch of intuitive headings. Oh, I'm<br>
sorry - you mean it is not just in developing countries? There is a<br>
widening gap between 'Joe the Taxonomist' and business of taxonomy<br>
data standards that we do not seem to be able to address (do we even<br>
care?). We used to be able to give our staff in the herbarium a TDWG<br>
standard and say 'this is what we have to do.' Not anymore... Ah,<br>
the good ole days... Maybe the answer lies in the hegemony of a new<br>
and benevolent 'MSOffice for Taxonomy'. Could work, but I do not<br>
think it is going to be particularly satisfying.<br>
<br>
On the reuse issue, Greg W argues that we do not do nearly enough of<br>
this and I agree with him. He argues that TDWG should focus on the<br>
standard and not the application and implementation of the standard<br>
and has proposed that in our vocabularies we should adopt the<br>
principles of nomenclatural priority, that is, going back to *Dublin*<br>
Core, adding stuff chronologically from other other standards,<br>
including our own, until there is no option other than to invent<br>
another one, or there is nothing in our domain left to standardize.<br>
For taxonomists there is something inherently attractive in this<br>
approach - don't describe a taxon where it already exists, don't<br>
invent a standard where one already exists. To retrofit this and<br>
untangle all the synonymy and homonymy in our existing standards and<br>
implementations is going to take a lot of work though. But the<br>
vocabularies and ontologies are a good start.<br>
<br>
On the 'branding, issue, it is not so much branding but attribution.<br>
Apart from the moral and legal issues, it is unscientific not to<br>
attribute, source and provide lineage for data. The is no<br>
optionality. We have to do it. Even if the initial supplier<br>
'disappears'. *Especially* if the initial supplier disappears.<br>
Attribution (branding if you like) is absolutely essential for<br>
credibility. If someone is not going to do it, they can not have our<br>
data, and we will not use theirs.<br>
<br>
On the architectural issue, I can not really get all that hung up on<br>
it. If a standard is good, it should be able to be implemented in a<br>
number of architectures (isn't that almost a definition of<br>
interoperability?). Where things get 'interesting' is when<br>
architecture (and the continuum towards application) becomes the<br>
standard or part of the standard. TDWG needs to constantly ask itself<br>
to what extent it needs to get involved with implementation of the<br>
standards it promotes. I would argue 'not at all', but this is<br>
another discussion.<br>
<br>
And the 'insider' cabalistic nature of TDWG? What can I say - it has<br>
always been this way. A standard attracts a champion and the champion<br>
establishes a fiefdom of acolytes around it. Yep, the human<br>
condition. And it sort of works. Some of the time. (btw - another<br>
artifact of the human condition - your brilliant ideas are never<br>
perceived as such until someone else has them - just ask poor old<br>
Wallace how he is feeling this year). A downside of this approach is<br>
that the various TDWG standards are very poorly coordinated between<br>
each other - this is something we should be able to do something<br>
about.<br>
<br>
We could piss on the TDWG tent from the outside, but you have to<br>
agree, it is much more satisfying to get inside the tent and piss on<br>
and piss off everyone in it... :)<br>
<br>
<disclaimer>None of the above ideas are mine. I am following the TDWG<br>
standard practice of restating them without attribution :)<br>
</disclaimer><br>
<br>
Ah... that was fun...<br>
<br>
jim<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Peter DeVries <<a href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Respectfully,<br>
> 1) Only certain classes of organizations will be able to contribute since<br>
> the standard is requires special skills. Those groups that can pay for<br>
> hardware and<br>
> a person specific to this standard for perpetuity. I look at this and<br>
> think that a number of groups that could be providers cannot because of the<br>
> way the<br>
> system is implemented. Why not have a simple RDF tar or zip file format<br>
> that GBIF checks with a crawler every night?<br>
> 2) There is very little reuse of existing vocabularies, geo for instance.<br>
> Similar to the "not invented here mentality".<br>
> 3) Discussions and decisions seem to be too much about making sure that<br>
> providers keep their "brand" on the data even if they disappear.<br>
> 4) Suggestions or alternative ways of thinking are rejected until an insider<br>
> restates them without attribution<br>
> 5) It is not at all clear how some of these decisions are made. It appears<br>
> as if some people disagree, there is discussion. Then years later there is<br>
> the same discussion. It seems that some smaller group keeps pulling<br>
> everyone back to the same architectural decision.<br>
> 6) Where are the example data sets? We should have some example data sets<br>
> available to see if the standard can be used to answer real questions?<br>
> Either they don't exist or they are only available to a few.<br>
> I actually have nothing but praise for GBIF and uBio (except for the minor<br>
> encoding thing), this more about trying to work within TDWG and getting<br>
> stonewalled. I am having the same feelings about it that I had a few years<br>
> ago, after which I left to try to make something that worked so I could<br>
> proceed with my project.<br>
> It probably was unfair to imply that the fiefdoms are by design, rather than<br>
> a side effect of the implementation standards, and for that I apologize.<br>
> - Pete<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Bob Morris <<a href="mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com">morris.bob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> "described by anyone" is not the same as "described by anyone in any way<br>
>> convenient to the describer", so I find this quotation somewhat<br>
>> disingenuous. More precisely, I wonder what TDWG standard or proposed<br>
>> standard you find enables fiefdoms \in ways that are impossible under some<br>
>> other solution to the problem the standard addresses/.<br>
>><br>
>> Bob Morris<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Peter DeVries <<a href="mailto:pete.devries@gmail.com">pete.devries@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> This paragraph below seems to encapsulate the differences in thinking<br>
>>> between the linkeddata community and<br>
>>> some of the TDWG people on how to best share biodiversity data.<br>
>>> "The notion of a fabric of resources that are individually described,<br>
>>> queried, and resolved may seem unmanageable or like science fiction. For<br>
>>> organizations that are used to large, manual, centralized efforts to<br>
>>> standardize on everything, it may seem anarchic to allow resources to grow<br>
>>> organically and be described by anyone. The same people would probably not<br>
>>> believe the Web possible in the first place if there were not already ample<br>
>>> proof of its success."<br>
>>> REST for Java developers, Part 4: The future is RESTful<br>
>>><br>
>>> From <a href="http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2009/jw-04-rest-series-4.html?page=4" target="_blank">http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2009/jw-04-rest-series-4.html?page=4</a><br>
>>> I think that some people may have lost sight of the goal of making data<br>
>>> available to improve the understanding of our<br>
>>> natural world and hopefully better manage our natural resources.<br>
>>> It does not seem that creating a distributed network of fiefdoms will<br>
>>> help us achieve this goal.<br>
>>> - Pete<br>
>>> I was led to this article by @janzemanek on twitter.<br>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>> Pete DeVries<br>
>>> Department of Entomology<br>
>>> University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>
>>> 445 Russell Laboratories<br>
>>> 1630 Linden Drive<br>
>>> Madison, WI 53706<br>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> tdwg-tag mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Robert A. Morris<br>
>> Professor of Computer Science<br>
>> UMASS-Boston<br>
>> <a href="mailto:ram@cs.umb.edu">ram@cs.umb.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/" target="_blank">http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram" target="_blank">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html</a><br>
>> phone (+1)617 287 6466<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Pete DeVries<br>
> Department of Entomology<br>
> University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>
> 445 Russell Laboratories<br>
> 1630 Linden Drive<br>
> Madison, WI 53706<br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> tdwg-tag mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
</div></div>_________________<br>
Jim Croft ~ <a href="mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com">jim.croft@gmail.com</a> ~ +61-2-62509499<br>
<br>
"Words, as is well known, are the great foes of reality."<br>
- Joseph Conrad, author (1857-1924)<br>
<br>
"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said,<br>
but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."<br>
- attributed to Robert McCloskey, US State Department spokesman<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br>Pete DeVries<br>Department of Entomology<br>University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>Madison, WI 53706<br>------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>