[tdwg-tag] [Lgtg] Re LSID-GUID
Roderic Page
r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Mon Nov 16 23:50:42 CET 2009
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 at 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 at lists.gbif.org [mailto:lgtg-
> bounces at lists.gbif.org] On Behalf Of Peter DeVries
> Sent: 15 November 2009 02:40
> To: Technical Architecture Group mailing list; lgtg at 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 at 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
Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20091116/aec9825b/attachment.html
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list