February 2006 - tdwg-tag - lists.tdwg.org

Technology/Approach to core Vocabulary/Ontology
by Roger Hyam 04 Mar '06

04 Mar '06

Hi All, I believe we agree that we need a core vocabulary/ontology and that this is limited in scope and under the remit of the TAG for the time being. So my first question is: *How do we develop a core vocabulary/ontology in a distributed, collaborative way?* Renato pointed out the way CIDOC is modeled which is similar (but more complex) to the way DublinCore is presented. Should we just start with a wiki page and build it from their or is there a more sophisticated tool we should use? Future use cases might include linking existing schemas to the core ontology and developing domain specific ontologies. My second question is: *Can we separate the definition of terms from the ontologies? * An example might make this clearer. We may be able to define TaxonName, GenusName and SpecificEpithet as terms and get general agreement on their meaning. This is separate from defining an ontology that stipulates TaxonName can only have a SpecificEpithet if it has a GenusName. One community may choose to use an ontology (or schema) to enforce this behaviour another might not but it doesn't change the meaning of the terms. DublinCore is like this. It defines a set of terms (as RDF properties in one form) that can be bolted together any way a user chooses but then the PRISM standard enforces their use in a certain way. Could decoupling of core terms from ontologies be a way forward? I am willing to stick my neck out and put the first list of objects/terms together but we then need to discuss use cases and modify any initial list. I believe this will then feed into protocols and serializations etc.. Once again I am grateful for your thoughts, Roger -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

2 1

[tdwg-tapir] conceptual binding
by "Döring, Markus" 03 Mar '06

03 Mar '06

Hello, I recently added support for schema imports in pywrapper mainly to support multiple namespaces in the repsonse. Me (and Javier) wanted to allow something like this: <wfs:FeatureCollection xmlns:wfs="http://www.opengis.net/wfs" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml" xmlns:gcp="http://www.ipgri.org/schemas/gcp_passport_gml/1.0"> <gml:featureMember> <gcp:accession fid="accession.12"> <gcp:GermplasmID>12</gcp:GermplasmID> <gcp:FAOInstituteCode>ES</gcp:FAOInstituteCode> <gcp:FullScientificName>Quercus ilex</gcp:FullScientificName> </gcp:accession> </gml:featureMember> </wfs:FeatureCollection> Here comes my problem: How do we refer to the FullScientificName concept in TAPIR? As a convention for schemas we said to create the fully qualified concept from the namespace and the simple xpath to the element. So somethinkg like this: http://www.opengis.net/wfs#/FeatureCollection/featureMember/accession/FullS… A real xpath to that element would of course include several namespaces: /wfs:FeatureCollection/gml:featureMember/gcp:accession/gcp:FullScientificName Could it be that we never need to refer to "compound" concepts anyway? A provider would probably map his db to the GCP schema alone. The WFS response is only the responded view/data model and we would still just use gcp#accession/FullScientificName as the qualified concept in filters. This is also true for our simple extension schemas I think (EFG for ABCD, all extensions for DwC). But arent there other cases? Thanks, Markus

4 6

[tdwg-tapir] CNS
by "Döring, Markus" 03 Mar '06

03 Mar '06

hi, is there any particular reason why we are having a primary and secondary concept nameserver only? Cant we allow an unlimited number of servers in an ordered list? the 1st CNS server entry with highest priority in case we encounter any conflicts. markus

2 1

Object Model / Ontology Management - how we kick it off.
by Roger Hyam 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

Hi All, It is generally agreed that we need an representation independent object model or ontology of some kind. I would like to put together a list of the things that need to be agreed or investigated in order to do this. Firstly the things I believe we can all agree on (stop me if I am wrong). 1. It should be representation independent (i.e. we should be able to move it between 'languages' UML, OWL, BNF etc). 2. It should be dynamic (i.e. capable of evolving through time). 3. It should be polymorphic. This is a result of it being dynamic. There will, at a minimum, be multiple version of any one part of the model when new version are introduced. 4. It should NOT attempt to be omniscient i.e. it will not cover everything in our domain, only the parts that need to be communicated. 5. It will be managed in a distributed fashion. Different teams will take responsibility for different parts of it. My first Question is: *Does the centralization of the ontology need to go beyond a small shared vocabulary of terms or base classes?* I envisage this ontology containing things like Collection, Specimen, TaxonConcept, TaxonName but not defining the detailed structure of these objects. It would contain a maximum of a few 10's of objects and properties. TDWG subgroups would be responsible for building ontologies that extend these base objects but that generally didn't refer to each other - only to the core. If this is true then I think the definition of the top level object falls within the remit of the TAG ( in consultation with others). If this is not a valid way forward what are the alternatives? Are their questions we should ask before this one? Once again I'd be grateful for your thoughts. Roger -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

5 9

Re: [tdwg-tapir] conceptual binding
by "Döring, Markus" 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

yes roger, quite an essential progress I think. RDF here we come, markus -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Roger Hyam [mailto:roger@tdwg.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2006 14:25 An: Javier privat Cc: Döring, Markus; tdwg-tapir(a)lists.tdwg.org Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] conceptual binding Yep. This looks like good news to me. Well done Markus. I presume this enables more RDF like response structures which is great - though I don't have a time to look at it in detail just at this moment I am afraid. I am sorry that I am still slow on the mapping of elements in conceptual schemas to concepts in data sources to response structures within Tapir so I will not comment further on how the mapping is done. Good luck, Roger Javier de la Torre wrote: Hi, I think this is not only an issue on filters, is also on mappings. In the mapping section of the outputModel the path attribute of the nodes shouldn't be also qualified? Is there cases that without qualifying we will have problems? Imagine you have in the outputModel something like: ... <gcp:FullScientificName>Quercus ilex</gcp:FullScientificName> <abcd:FullScientificName>Quercus ilex L.</abcd:FullScientificName> ... I know it is maybe not a good example, but I hope is clear. This reminds me also a message from Roger before Christmas about using RDF with TAPIR. "Tapir has the intention of combining separate 'concepts' (which implies different namespaces) into a single output model but do the concepts all have to be mapped into a single namespace to make the thing workable?" If I understood the question correctly, the answer is no after import is something supported. Javier. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ tdwg-tapir mailing list tdwg-tapir(a)lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: PublicationBank, Policy/Best Practice
by Robert Huber 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Dear all, Avoiding duplicate efforts does of course make sense, but a bit of 'competition' is also quite useful when e.g. for QC in the data management business? Having this data in two dbs might therefore be an excellent chance to test the integrity of data? Or better: can give a general estimate on the _possible_ integrity of such data? I'm pretty sure typos, wrong spelling etc will occur on every such service, as e.g. nobody can expect a person typing all that names speaks all the used languages, or think of character encoding problems etc.. I agree with Chuck that duplication is OK if there are only duplicates and no variants.. best regards, Robert > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]Im Auftrag von Sally Hinchcliffe > Gesendet: Montag, 27. Februar 2006 17:50 > An: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Betreff: Re: PublicationBank, Policy/Best Practice > > > Hi - regarding author names, I'm a little worried about duplication > of effort here > for botanical authors (plus fungal authors and other authors of algae > and groups not included in the scope of IPNI proper) the authors > served by IPNI cover the original Brummitt & Powell authors plus > Harvard's Authors and it continues to be kept up to date and added to > on a daily basis. The 'Brummitt & Powell' form is the TDWG standard > for citing botanical authors. > > I hope uBio aren't reinventing the wheel here ... we can certainly do > more at IPNI to publicise this & to make web services and so on > available but I would hate to think this data is being compiled and > kept up to date in more than one place. > See > http://www.ipni.org/ipni/authorsearch?request_type=search&output_forma > t=query&ret_defaults=on for the authors in IPNI > > For publications we too, like many other databases that use > publications and references, have a publications table that more or > less covers electronically what BPH and Taxonomic Literature do on > paper. This was compiled originally by Harvard. and is available at > http://www.ipni.org/ipni/publicationsearch?request_type=search&output_ > format=query&ret_defaults=on > > I'd love for us to be tapping into some centrally available > 'publication bank' that we could use in IPNI instead of our own > internal lists & if this is web servicable would hopefully be looking > to integrating it in via that rather than keeping copies of our own > data. > > Sally > > > > Dear Dr. Huber: We are interested in being part of the conversation > > on PublicationBank. > > > > One area we are interested in is the resolution of abbreviated and > > lexical forms of citations and I would think this would have to be a > > component of a more fundamental publicationBank resolution system. > > Issues of integrating citations have arisen in the digital conversion > > of taxonomic catalogs. We have successfully completed Nomenclator > > Zoologicus and are now working on Index Animalium. Resolving > > citations is a priority because it can identify high-impact > > candidates for future digital conversion, link different cited forms > > to a common source, and provide a foundation for referencing > > bibliographic components of taxonomic circumscriptions. Between the > > two sources we have over 800,000 citations references as a starting > > point. I know this issue is also of interest with our library > > colleagues at the Smithsonian. > > > > We have a similar issue with author names annotating taxon names and > > have an web service in place for resolving them. At the moment this > > is populated primarily with botanical authors but as we post-process > > Sherborne and Neave we will likely be adding many thousands of > > zoological authors. > > > > http://uio.mbl.edu/authors/info.php > > > > Regards, > > David Remsen > > > > On Feb 27, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Robert Huber wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > To my earlier email on PublicationBank I got no resonse, so I > > > assume no > > > earlier > > > attempts or discussion on this topic have been started yet? > > > > > > A pragmatic starting point for PublicationBank (PB)would be to use the > > > literature > > > entries of the existing LSID authorities databases to initially > > > populate PB > > > with > > > GUIDs. > > > To get the appropriate GUIDs we ideally would have access to > > > services from > > > the publishers, databases such as PubMed or the DOI foundation > > > (crossref). > > > > > > I called these services Bibliographic Query Resolver and just > > > started to > > > search > > > the web for potential candidates. Results are here: > > > > > > http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php? > > > wakka=BibliographicQueryResolver > > > > > > > > > Bibliographic Query Resolver > > > Accepts bibliographic meta-data and returns the corresponding GUID > > > (e.g. > > > DOI, LSID) > > > > > > * CrossRef offers a variety of possibilities to resolve DOIs. More > > > information can be found at CrossRefs query spec pages. The DOI link > > > directly redirects to the online document (subscription dependent) or > > > abstract. > > > * PudMed offers a 'Batch Citation Matcher' to retrieve a PMID > > > which can > > > be completed as LSID? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards, > > > Robert > > > > > > Dr. Robert Huber > > > WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de, www.wdc-mare.org > > > Stratigraphy.net - www.stratigraphy.net > > > _____________________________________________ > > > MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location) > > > University Bremen > > > Leobener Strasse > > > POP 330 440 > > > 28359 Bremen > > > Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505 > > > e-mail rhuber@@wdc-mare.org, robert.huber(a)stratigraphy.net > > > > > > *** Sally Hinchcliffe > *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew > *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 > *** S.Hinchcliffe(a)rbgkew.org.uk

1 0

Re: PublicationBank, Policy/Best Practice
by Sally Hinchcliffe 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Hi - regarding author names, I'm a little worried about duplication of effort here for botanical authors (plus fungal authors and other authors of algae and groups not included in the scope of IPNI proper) the authors served by IPNI cover the original Brummitt & Powell authors plus Harvard's Authors and it continues to be kept up to date and added to on a daily basis. The 'Brummitt & Powell' form is the TDWG standard for citing botanical authors. I hope uBio aren't reinventing the wheel here ... we can certainly do more at IPNI to publicise this & to make web services and so on available but I would hate to think this data is being compiled and kept up to date in more than one place. See http://www.ipni.org/ipni/authorsearch?request_type=search&output_forma t=query&ret_defaults=on for the authors in IPNI For publications we too, like many other databases that use publications and references, have a publications table that more or less covers electronically what BPH and Taxonomic Literature do on paper. This was compiled originally by Harvard. and is available at http://www.ipni.org/ipni/publicationsearch?request_type=search&output_ format=query&ret_defaults=on I'd love for us to be tapping into some centrally available 'publication bank' that we could use in IPNI instead of our own internal lists & if this is web servicable would hopefully be looking to integrating it in via that rather than keeping copies of our own data. Sally > Dear Dr. Huber: We are interested in being part of the conversation > on PublicationBank. > > One area we are interested in is the resolution of abbreviated and > lexical forms of citations and I would think this would have to be a > component of a more fundamental publicationBank resolution system. > Issues of integrating citations have arisen in the digital conversion > of taxonomic catalogs. We have successfully completed Nomenclator > Zoologicus and are now working on Index Animalium. Resolving > citations is a priority because it can identify high-impact > candidates for future digital conversion, link different cited forms > to a common source, and provide a foundation for referencing > bibliographic components of taxonomic circumscriptions. Between the > two sources we have over 800,000 citations references as a starting > point. I know this issue is also of interest with our library > colleagues at the Smithsonian. > > We have a similar issue with author names annotating taxon names and > have an web service in place for resolving them. At the moment this > is populated primarily with botanical authors but as we post-process > Sherborne and Neave we will likely be adding many thousands of > zoological authors. > > http://uio.mbl.edu/authors/info.php > > Regards, > David Remsen > > On Feb 27, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Robert Huber wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > To my earlier email on PublicationBank I got no resonse, so I > > assume no > > earlier > > attempts or discussion on this topic have been started yet? > > > > A pragmatic starting point for PublicationBank (PB)would be to use the > > literature > > entries of the existing LSID authorities databases to initially > > populate PB > > with > > GUIDs. > > To get the appropriate GUIDs we ideally would have access to > > services from > > the publishers, databases such as PubMed or the DOI foundation > > (crossref). > > > > I called these services Bibliographic Query Resolver and just > > started to > > search > > the web for potential candidates. Results are here: > > > > http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php? > > wakka=BibliographicQueryResolver > > > > > > Bibliographic Query Resolver > > Accepts bibliographic meta-data and returns the corresponding GUID > > (e.g. > > DOI, LSID) > > > > * CrossRef offers a variety of possibilities to resolve DOIs. More > > information can be found at CrossRefs query spec pages. The DOI link > > directly redirects to the online document (subscription dependent) or > > abstract. > > * PudMed offers a 'Batch Citation Matcher' to retrieve a PMID > > which can > > be completed as LSID? > > > > > > > > > > best regards, > > Robert > > > > Dr. Robert Huber > > WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de, www.wdc-mare.org > > Stratigraphy.net - www.stratigraphy.net > > _____________________________________________ > > MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location) > > University Bremen > > Leobener Strasse > > POP 330 440 > > 28359 Bremen > > Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505 > > e-mail rhuber@@wdc-mare.org, robert.huber(a)stratigraphy.net > > *** Sally Hinchcliffe *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 *** S.Hinchcliffe(a)rbgkew.org.uk

1 0

Re: PublicationBank, Policy/Best Practice
by Chuck Miller 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

There are current "official" TDWG standards for author names, publications, etc. See http://www.tdwg.org/standrds.html. Although these content standards are primarily botanical, they do stand as the current TDWG standards until repealed or amended. In the 80s and 90s, particularly when TDWG was more botanical, TDWG tended to address data content standards. Data exchange structures have taken the forefront in the last several years, leaving data content dormant. Now GUIDs may be bringing an old TDWG issue back into view. To envision a standard repository of common data values for publications and authors is to return to the TDWG discussions and goals of the 1980s, only now encompassing all organisms and not just botany. In the early times we had folks, like Brummitt and Powell, willing to invest years of time to compiling such data sources. Who would take on a similar data content compilation task for zoology, bacteriology, etc in order to make the TDWG data standards complete? Is the desire to have one master standardized list of all biological authors, publications, journals? And even more importantly, who would keep it up to date? I think Remsen is describing his author list as a start on an "all-biology author" list, but Sally points out the peril in that given the original source of the botanical authors being at IPNI. And we haven't even gotten started. Certainly since many authors published in multiple organismal groups and many publications are also multiple organismal, without synthesis of the author and publication lists some duplication of GUIDs will inevitably occur. But, maybe the amount of this duplication falls outside what Richard Pyle called "90% of the value 90% of the time" (a quote I really like) and should just be accepted. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Sally Hinchcliffe [mailto:S.Hinchcliffe@KEW.ORG] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:50 AM To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject: Re: [TDWG-GUID] PublicationBank, Policy/Best Practice Hi - regarding author names, I'm a little worried about duplication of effort here for botanical authors (plus fungal authors and other authors of algae and groups not included in the scope of IPNI proper) the authors served by IPNI cover the original Brummitt & Powell authors plus Harvard's Authors and it continues to be kept up to date and added to on a daily basis. The 'Brummitt & Powell' form is the TDWG standard for citing botanical authors. I hope uBio aren't reinventing the wheel here ... we can certainly do more at IPNI to publicise this & to make web services and so on available but I would hate to think this data is being compiled and kept up to date in more than one place. See http://www.ipni.org/ipni/authorsearch?request_type=search&output_forma t=query&ret_defaults=on for the authors in IPNI For publications we too, like many other databases that use publications and references, have a publications table that more or less covers electronically what BPH and Taxonomic Literature do on paper. This was compiled originally by Harvard. and is available at http://www.ipni.org/ipni/publicationsearch?request_type=search&output_ format=query&ret_defaults=on I'd love for us to be tapping into some centrally available 'publication bank' that we could use in IPNI instead of our own internal lists & if this is web servicable would hopefully be looking to integrating it in via that rather than keeping copies of our own data. Sally > Dear Dr. Huber: We are interested in being part of the conversation > on PublicationBank. > > One area we are interested in is the resolution of abbreviated and > lexical forms of citations and I would think this would have to be a > component of a more fundamental publicationBank resolution system. > Issues of integrating citations have arisen in the digital conversion > of taxonomic catalogs. We have successfully completed Nomenclator > Zoologicus and are now working on Index Animalium. Resolving > citations is a priority because it can identify high-impact > candidates for future digital conversion, link different cited forms > to a common source, and provide a foundation for referencing > bibliographic components of taxonomic circumscriptions. Between the > two sources we have over 800,000 citations references as a starting > point. I know this issue is also of interest with our library > colleagues at the Smithsonian. > > We have a similar issue with author names annotating taxon names and > have an web service in place for resolving them. At the moment this > is populated primarily with botanical authors but as we post-process > Sherborne and Neave we will likely be adding many thousands of > zoological authors. > > http://uio.mbl.edu/authors/info.php > > Regards, > David Remsen > > On Feb 27, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Robert Huber wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > To my earlier email on PublicationBank I got no resonse, so I > > assume no > > earlier > > attempts or discussion on this topic have been started yet? > > > > A pragmatic starting point for PublicationBank (PB)would be to use the > > literature > > entries of the existing LSID authorities databases to initially > > populate PB > > with > > GUIDs. > > To get the appropriate GUIDs we ideally would have access to > > services from > > the publishers, databases such as PubMed or the DOI foundation > > (crossref). > > > > I called these services Bibliographic Query Resolver and just > > started to > > search > > the web for potential candidates. Results are here: > > > > http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php? > > wakka=BibliographicQueryResolver > > > > > > Bibliographic Query Resolver > > Accepts bibliographic meta-data and returns the corresponding GUID > > (e.g. > > DOI, LSID) > > > > * CrossRef offers a variety of possibilities to resolve DOIs. More > > information can be found at CrossRefs query spec pages. The DOI link > > directly redirects to the online document (subscription dependent) or > > abstract. > > * PudMed offers a 'Batch Citation Matcher' to retrieve a PMID > > which can > > be completed as LSID? > > > > > > > > > > best regards, > > Robert > > > > Dr. Robert Huber > > WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de, www.wdc-mare.org > > Stratigraphy.net - www.stratigraphy.net > > _____________________________________________ > > MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location) > > University Bremen > > Leobener Strasse > > POP 330 440 > > 28359 Bremen > > Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505 > > e-mail rhuber@@wdc-mare.org, robert.huber(a)stratigraphy.net > > *** Sally Hinchcliffe *** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew *** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708 *** S.Hinchcliffe(a)rbgkew.org.uk

1 0

Re: PublicationBank, Policy/Best Practice
by Robert Huber 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Dear all, To my earlier email on PublicationBank I got no resonse, so I assume no earlier attempts or discussion on this topic have been started yet? A pragmatic starting point for PublicationBank (PB)would be to use the literature entries of the existing LSID authorities databases to initially populate PB with GUIDs. To get the appropriate GUIDs we ideally would have access to services from the publishers, databases such as PubMed or the DOI foundation (crossref). I called these services Bibliographic Query Resolver and just started to search the web for potential candidates. Results are here: http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=BibliographicQueryResolver Bibliographic Query Resolver Accepts bibliographic meta-data and returns the corresponding GUID (e.g. DOI, LSID) * CrossRef offers a variety of possibilities to resolve DOIs. More information can be found at CrossRefs query spec pages. The DOI link directly redirects to the online document (subscription dependent) or abstract. * PudMed offers a 'Batch Citation Matcher' to retrieve a PMID which can be completed as LSID? best regards, Robert Dr. Robert Huber WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de, www.wdc-mare.org Stratigraphy.net - www.stratigraphy.net _____________________________________________ MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location) University Bremen Leobener Strasse POP 330 440 28359 Bremen Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505 e-mail rhuber@@wdc-mare.org, robert.huber(a)stratigraphy.net

1 0

Re: PublicationBank, Policy/Best Practice
by David Remsen 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

Dear Dr. Huber: We are interested in being part of the conversation on PublicationBank. One area we are interested in is the resolution of abbreviated and lexical forms of citations and I would think this would have to be a component of a more fundamental publicationBank resolution system. Issues of integrating citations have arisen in the digital conversion of taxonomic catalogs. We have successfully completed Nomenclator Zoologicus and are now working on Index Animalium. Resolving citations is a priority because it can identify high-impact candidates for future digital conversion, link different cited forms to a common source, and provide a foundation for referencing bibliographic components of taxonomic circumscriptions. Between the two sources we have over 800,000 citations references as a starting point. I know this issue is also of interest with our library colleagues at the Smithsonian. We have a similar issue with author names annotating taxon names and have an web service in place for resolving them. At the moment this is populated primarily with botanical authors but as we post-process Sherborne and Neave we will likely be adding many thousands of zoological authors. http://uio.mbl.edu/authors/info.php Regards, David Remsen On Feb 27, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Robert Huber wrote: > Dear all, > > To my earlier email on PublicationBank I got no resonse, so I > assume no > earlier > attempts or discussion on this topic have been started yet? > > A pragmatic starting point for PublicationBank (PB)would be to use the > literature > entries of the existing LSID authorities databases to initially > populate PB > with > GUIDs. > To get the appropriate GUIDs we ideally would have access to > services from > the publishers, databases such as PubMed or the DOI foundation > (crossref). > > I called these services Bibliographic Query Resolver and just > started to > search > the web for potential candidates. Results are here: > > http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php? > wakka=BibliographicQueryResolver > > > Bibliographic Query Resolver > Accepts bibliographic meta-data and returns the corresponding GUID > (e.g. > DOI, LSID) > > * CrossRef offers a variety of possibilities to resolve DOIs. More > information can be found at CrossRefs query spec pages. The DOI link > directly redirects to the online document (subscription dependent) or > abstract. > * PudMed offers a 'Batch Citation Matcher' to retrieve a PMID > which can > be completed as LSID? > > > > > best regards, > Robert > > Dr. Robert Huber > WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de, www.wdc-mare.org > Stratigraphy.net - www.stratigraphy.net > _____________________________________________ > MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences (location) > University Bremen > Leobener Strasse > POP 330 440 > 28359 Bremen > Phone ++49 421 218-65593, Fax ++49 421 218-65505 > e-mail rhuber@@wdc-mare.org, robert.huber(a)stratigraphy.net

1 0