Hi Gregor,
You are right. I don't really get any info directly from the EoL other than some names, or the authorship of a name I have manually.
I have started to link to images on DBpedia and if I pull any in because the links are unstable then I add the image metadata in the RDF.
It is my understanding that thumbnails representations 128x128 or 135x95 or smaller are ok to use, based on cases involving Google and Bings use of thumbnails.
It would be useful to create an open but attributed set of images for each species that we could share.
It is my understanding that if they are open, Amazon might be willing to host them for free.
I would like to be able to link to specimens in GBIF etc or publications in the BHL that contain at least a minimal amount of metadata.
* It would also be useful to have a standard set of URI's that could be used to track credit to ITIS etc. I could create a simple RDF vocabulary for this but it might be best to have it hosted at TDWG, EoL or GBIF.
- Pete
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn@gmail.comwrote:
There is no reason that the EoL, GBIF or both could not adopt and take ownership of what I am working on.
I think one of the problems is that we have no model of collaborative working under Open Source / Open Content licenses in the biodiversity community. Most try to define unlicensed monopolies (whether for commercial exploitation or just the next grant).
EoL is almost exclusively build on closed content (with bilateral agreements allowing them to display the "Creative Commons Non-Commercial" content). I don't imply this is a failure of EoL, it is the status of the community.
As a result, there is no "we" and little synergies.
Gregor