Roger Hyam wrote:
[...] [...]The question is why there are not more data portals?
I would say that it is because so far, mainly low-hanging fruit has been picked by the effort of the TDWG community. The number of relatively large specimen and observation record providers is pretty small. The providers are relatively large, have IT professionals on their staff and have as part of their primary focus the disemination of their data. Also, specimen records are mainly of interest to systematists, which are a relatively small(?) fraction of practicing biologists. If I had to make a (somewhat self-serving) guess, it would be that the largest number of electronic data providers about species---including static web pages--- are offering descriptive data, including images. Queries like "What is this?" and "what is its role in the ecosystem?" probably are asked by astronomically more consumers of biodiversity data than "where is the type specimen?". Observation records may be some "midlevel hanging fruit" for which the major providers share the IT sophistication of specimen record providers. To the best of my knowledge, among the big ones, only NatureServe and Cornell Lab For Ornithology are TDWG participants. Is TAG listening to them?
In summary, I am slightly concerned that the experience with collection data may have the power to cloud our minds about what biodiversity data and its needed infrastructure are.
Bob