Dear Peter,

I feel your latest email needs a response.

I drew the diagram that appeared in the report (http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/08/gbif-and-linked-data.html ) that showed how GBIF data could relate to other major players in this area, specifically ones around the table at the time, or people who had been involved in the LSID discussions. That was the focus. I didn't include all potential or actual linked data providers. Some of these I regard as poorly developed. For example, http://bio2rdf.org is focussed (like most genomic RDF efforts) on proteins, and doesn't include any metadata about sequence sources (country, voucher, specimen, host) that would be central to efforts to link GBIF to GenBank. Until bio2rdf deals with this it seems of little direct relevance.

Your geospecies work is another example of  linked data, and in hindsight it's a pity that mention of geospecies dropped out of the report (a lot of stuff got dropped). However, I regard geospecies in much the same way as bio2rdf, an incomplete demonstration of what can be done. The real target of my diagram was the primary data providers, such as GBIF, IPNI, IndexFungorum, etc. Anybody can put RDF wrappers around existing databases (and generate a whole new series of URIs for those entities), and LOD is full of this (one could make a case that the LOD approach will fail in part because of this problem). What I'd like to see is the data providers themselves assume responsibility for providing this data. Ironically, for all their idiosyncrasies, LSIDs have played a part in this, as we now have native RDF being served by several key databases (albeit poorly linked).

I wasn't responsible for the other part of the report you complain about, which concerned ambiguity of taxonomic names. However, you're going to have a hard time convincing anybody that the notion of a stable, unique identifier for a concept is original with you. This is precisely the model used by the NCBI taxonomic database, where Taxon IDs are stable even if the name changes.

On a more personal note, I really take exception to the notion that somehow I've co-opted your ideas as my own, and that I'm engaged in an attempt "to create a paper trail that makes the proposal look like their own". I (and quite a few others) have been talking about the general problem of linking together biodiversity data for several years now. There's much vigourous discussion about ways to do this, some behind closed doors in workshops (some I've been at, many I've not), some very publicly (e.g., in blog comments). I've discussed this topic in papers from 2005 onwards, and numerous blog posts  on http://iphylo.blogspot.com, as well as the defunct blogs http://semant.blogspot.com/ and http://bioguid.blogspot.com/ . Pretty much everything I do, warts and all, is there for people to see. Furthermore, I'm actually rather sceptical that linked data approaches will work as well as people hope (see http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/304/ and http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/351/ for some reasons ).

You seem to feel that your efforts aren't given enough credit. Whatever the merits of that perception, attacking me isn't going to help.  We've both got much better things to do with our time.

Regards

Rod


On 16 Nov 2009, at 20:21, Peter DeVries wrote:

Dear Éamonn,

My goal of including the text about my ability to attend the LSID-GUID task group was simply to address the earlier assertion that the meeting
was open to anyone.

It my understanding that although I was nominated by one of the US reps, I did not realize until after the fact that I was supposed to send in
my C.V.. So part of this confusion was the result of an error on my part.

You were kind enough to send me the pre-meeting documents which I looked over. At the time it seemed that the goal of the meeting was
to coordinate and promote the use of LSID's. Also I noted that the document did mention my work (see below). So I preceded, unconcerned since what was proposed was only nominally related to what I have been proposing at a number of talks and email discussions, and it even mentioned my work.

"Among the resources of obvious relevance to biodiversity are DBpedia, PubMed, geonames, geospecies, and the RDF Book Mashup.
"

When I saw the draft proposal it appeared as if the goals of the meeting had changed since the original documents distributed a few weeks before.

What Rod Page was now advocating was almost identical to what I had been advocating for over the last year. A proposal that I had thought was going to be incorporated into the GNA. It also mirrored what I had been doing with the GeoSpecies and TaxonConcept projects, which are mentioned on the TDWG site as examples of the TDWG vocabulary.

So not only did mention of my work disappear in the next draft revision, Rod Page appeared to be representing my proposal as his own.

Since this was already positioned to be part of the EOL-GBIF GNA, I can't see any reason for them to be concerned about turf. As far as I was concerned there had been several discussions about incorporating my work into the GNA and that appears to be moving forward.

I can see how one person might be trying to create a paper trail that makes the proposal look like their own. A pattern which I have seen several times before and is well documented in the history of science.

I think the whole reason I was nominated for this group was because of my existing work and proposals so it is strange that there is no mention of it in the post meeting draft.

Since it was already planned to be incorporated in the GNA, why wouldn't it have been mentioned?

Respectfully,

- Pete


On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Éamonn Ó Tuama <eotuama@gbif.org> wrote:

Dear Peter,

 

The call to participate in the LGTG was open to everyone but, unfortunately, for reasons already given to you and because of the need to limit numbers to create a functional and effective work group, and to be able to cover travel costs, the maximum number that could actually participate in the workshop was limited. We sought to get the inputs of those individuals who expressed interest but were not selected for the core task group through comments on drafts of the report and all your emails, along with those from others, were shared with the group. There was no intent to exclude any significant work – the final report was not meant to be an exhaustive literature review of the current state of the field – it needed to be kept concise – but I support Kevin’s response (attached) and would be happy to see a reference to GeoSpecies in the linked data section.

 

I think there will be plenty of opportunities for your contributions as we move forward. The plan is to create a web site for the report with facility to comment and suggest additional materials. Expansion on some of the briefly mentioned use cases in the report is one area, for example, that needs amplification.

 

Best regards,

 

Éamonn

 
 

From: lgtg-bounces@lists.gbif.org [mailto:lgtg-bounces@lists.gbif.org] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries
Sent: 15 November 2009 02:40
To: Technical Architecture Group mailing list; lgtg@lists.gbif.org
Subject: [Lgtg] Re LSID-GUID

 

I also thought I would also address this statement about the LSID-GUID meeting

 

> The invitation to the LGTG workshop was open to everyone.

 

"Thank you for your expression of interest in participating in the GBIF LSID-GUID Task Group. Due to the need to have a mix of skills/experience and to try to maintain a geographical spread (difficult), it did not prove possible to include you in the core group (North America was over-represented in the nominations)"

 

I have no animosity toward GBIF for this, I have just become increasingly concerned about a growing paper trail that is amazingly similar to my own proposals but fails to mention my work.

 

It seems strange to me that of all the people involved in TDWG and Linked Data discussions over the last year my efforts seem to be being positioned as "invisible".

 

- Pete

 
 
 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
------------------------------------------------------------




--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete DeVries
Department of Entomology
University of Wisconsin - Madison
445 Russell Laboratories
1630 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tdwg-tag mailing list
tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag

---------------------------------------------------------
Roderic Page
Professor of Taxonomy
DEEB, FBLS
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792