View
236
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Biodiversity Biodiversity Data vs. the Data vs. the
Web 2.0Web 2.0OR
How I learned to stop worrying and love the “systems”
Ana Dal MolinJ. B. Woolley
Texas A&M University
Source: Opte.orgJan 2005
[ Why this talk ]
• Data providers• Aggregators• Tools • etc
“growth in bioinformatics data exceeded Moore’s Law, the well-known observation that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 18 months.” (Butte, 2001, TRENDS in Biotechnology 19(5))
• Johnson, N. 2007. Annual Rev. Entomology• http://www.ala.org.au/about-the-atlas/downloadable-tools/tools-review/• IDigBio
47*
[ what do I use? ]
• Museums often have already decided on a model/database system
• Each researcher, on the other hand, may not have, so questions– Content management systems (CMS)?– Which output?– Stability? – Best practices?
‘systems’ available• First Generation: desktop-based (MS Access,
FileMaker)• Second Generation: desktop-based with web output• Third Generation: content management systems
(PHP, Ruby, MySql, etc.)
Data Accessibility
Your data on the ‘net
• Reach• Model
GBIF species distribution data coverage (2010)
[ ? ]
Metadata
Data
Metadata repository Name IndexOccurrence Index
Yellow PagesRegional Atlas
Annotation Tools
Biosecurity Portal
Analysis Tools Products
LaSalle, 2008. Atlas of Living Australia, ICE2008 presentation
[ where do I stand? ]
• Taxonomy as 2-natured science• Shifts in media format
Web 1.0 -> Web 3.0 1.0: Static HTML, e-mail, forums, chat 2.0: Dynamic HTML, Wikis, blogging,
commenting, social networking 3.0: …
*You and your work are not invisible before publication*
• Web 3.0:– “Social”– Tags – Cloud computing– Ubiquitous connectivity – Open technologies, open data formats (and open identity
too)– Publishing in languages specifically designed for data
(databases, markup)– Semantic web– Marketing
• What the user wants • What you have to deal with
*
*not done!
Think it through
Books Gutenberg Gutenberg Project WordCat Hashi Trust
The way we collect information is differentThe way we accumulate information is differentThe way we understand information is different
… or not
Jan/201233%USA, 20% Brazil, 26% Europe (Germany, Sweden, Spain, Greece, UK)
1.0 2.0
• Web 3.01. People lie2. People are lazy3. People are stupid4. Mission: impossible – know
thyself5. Schemas aren’t neutral6. Metrics influence results7. There’s more than one way to
describe something
C. Doctorow, Metacrap, 2001
Issues • “Unification”* is not going to happen – curators and
researchers will always have their own – (although often largely overlapping) set of crucial
information fields which can be cross-linked• These days, it is imperative that databases
communicate with each other• ‘unitary taxonomy’ is also not possible and any big
database needs to allow the system to display conflicting ideas
* Thomas, C. “Biodiversity databases spread, prompting unification call”, Science v. 325 (2009)
** http://hymao.org
Data ephemerality
• Local vs. Web data
?!
Source: Wikipedia, “Science 2.0”
Data ephemerality• Digital data preservation: Internet Archive, IIPC• Library of Congress discussions and recommendations
– Disclosure, Adoption, Transparency , External dependency, Technical protection
• http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats
User perspective “Incomplete” sites Dynamic information
Selective information?
Why I am not a luddite:
Online databases are taxonomic product and marketing for your work
Online biodiversity databases complement your work
But it’s up to you to be able to make the user understand that your work is more than that
The user of online databases is probably not the same as the person who will get your paper
summing up• Choose the system based on reports you want/need to
deliver
… or work with a journal/team that can help you• Make sure the system is flexible enough in your hands• Decide who will do the maintenance of your data
– How big is your team?– Fluidity (positive and negative)
• Think about stability and backup strategies
Thanks!!
Recommended