[tdwg-content] status of uBio

[Jonathan A Rees]

For me it's not a question of supporting new users or promoting uBio or keeping up with curation activity; it's a matter of supporting existing uses and promoting scientific reproducibility. I know of two projects that use uBio (treebase and phylopic) and would be surprised if they weren't just the tip of the iceberg. The identifiers could be buried in papers, data files, software, and so on.

Moving on to other resources, and using uBio as an input, are fine ideas, but it's not either/or. It's highly desirable to retain the ability to resolve current uBio identifiers somehow, even if the means for doing so are awkward (e.g. scanning a dump file or using an API not designed for the purpose).

But I suspect Hilmar is right, and all those identifiers will become inert, if not now then within a few years.

Jonathan

On Oct 15, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Shorthouse, David <david.shorthouse at umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> Good intentions. However, uBio has historically expressly not allowed the
>> download or redistribution of its content in bulk. (Perhaps they’ve changed
>> this lately, but if so, I’m not aware that they have.)
> 
> Is there still a 'they' that can respond? If there is no longer a
> 'they', is this a case of a resource that does more harm in being
> revived than in turning it off? I did not see evidence of activity in
> uBio prior to its disappearance; we ought to strive for resources that
> can acquire and integrate new content with minimal effort and be able
> to illustrate that. Perhaps we should solicit the once present 'they'
> and current entities/individuals that have assumed ownership to
> release the content & functionality for reabsorption elsewhere.
> 
> David P. Shorthouse
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content