I think a comprehensive registry of data providers, datasets and the services built on them would go a long way to achieve what you are looking for. To do that we need a good metadata profile for biodiversity data and GBIF has identified this as a priority over the next year. We also need to think beyond the immediate biodiversity realm to engage with the wider geospatial community in such activities as GEOSS. We have already
registered
the GBIF data portal REST services in the GEOSS registry and I have
started
discussions with TDWG about getting their standards registered.
[David Shorthouse wrote:]
Éamonn,
Of course it will be nice for everyone to play the same game. But, there will always be dissenters who dream up their own API & ontologies or those who haven't quite massaged their outputs to be fully compliant with whatever spec is agreed upon. If you have a look at the example apps in programmableweb, well over 70% of these use Google Map and many are quite simple. [Aside: providers aren't really aggrandized here unless you consider Google a provider. Rather, the focus is on the apps and how the data are being repurposed.] I don't see any particular reason not to build something like programmablebiodiversity.org now to see what people come up with using existing services, especially if we now have the confidence to say these web services can be the foundation upon which biodiversity-based mashups can be erected. Do we yet have that confidence? If so then naturally, these creative apps will become richer when and if we cement a common metadata profile. But, how the services are being used now might just dictate how they should be produced for widest use. And, it's not much of a stretch then to surmise that what people do with the data will lead to adjustments in a species profile model.
There are already some really cool things one can do with GBIF web services, but is anyone tracking these? Unlike the Google Map API, there are no registration keys to use these REST services. What about runaway scripts?
David