Biodiversity DataBiodiversity Data
vs. the Web 2.0vs. the Web 2.0
OR
How I learned to stop worrying and
love the “systems”...
Source: Opte.org
Jan 2005
[ Why this talk ]
• Data providers
• Aggregators
• Tools
• etc
“growth in bioinformatics data
exceeded Moore’s Law, the well-
known observat...
[ what do I use? ]
• Museums often have already decided on a
model/database system
• Each researcher, on the other hand, may not
have, so que...
‘systems’ available
• First Generation: desktop-based (MS Access,
FileMaker)
• Second Generation: desktop-based with web o...
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...
[ 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 netwo...
• Web 3.0:
– “Social”
– Tags
– Cloud computing
– Ubiquitous connectivity
– Open technologies, open data formats (and open ...
http://www.tdwg.org
• 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 different
The way we accumulate information is
different
The way we understand informati...
… or not
Jan/2012
33%USA, 20% Brazil, 26% Europe
(Germany, Sweden, Spain, Greece, UK)
1.0 2.0
• Web 3.0
1. People lie
2. People are lazy
3. People are stupid
4. Mission: impossible – know
thyself
5. Schemas aren’t ne...
Issues
• “Unification”*
is not going to happen – curators and
researchers will always have their own
– (although often lar...
Data ephemerality
• Local vs. Web data
?!
Source: Wikipedia, “Science 2.0”
Data ephemerality
• Digital data preservation: Internet Archive, IIPC
• Library of Congress discussions and recommendation...
 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
...
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 ...
Thanks!!
Da molin databases_ecn_2012
Da molin databases_ecn_2012
Da molin databases_ecn_2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Da molin databases_ecn_2012

243 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
243
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Da molin databases_ecn_2012

  1. 1. Biodiversity DataBiodiversity Data vs. the Web 2.0vs. the Web 2.0 OR How I learned to stop worrying and love the “systems” Ana Dal Molin J. B. Woolley Texas A&M University
  2. 2. Source: Opte.org Jan 2005
  3. 3. [ Why this talk ]
  4. 4. • 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*
  5. 5. [ what do I use? ]
  6. 6. • 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?
  7. 7. ‘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.)
  8. 8. Data Accessibility
  9. 9. Your data on the ‘net • Reach • Model GBIF species distribution data coverage (2010)
  10. 10. [ ? ] 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
  11. 11. [ where do I stand? ]
  12. 12. • Taxonomy as 2-natured science • Shifts in media format
  13. 13. 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*
  14. 14. • 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
  15. 15. http://www.tdwg.org
  16. 16. • What the user wants • What you have to deal with * *not done!
  17. 17. Think it through
  18. 18. Books  Gutenberg  Gutenberg Project  WordCat  Hashi Trust
  19. 19. The way we collect information is different The way we accumulate information is different The way we understand information is different
  20. 20. … or not Jan/2012 33%USA, 20% Brazil, 26% Europe (Germany, Sweden, Spain, Greece, UK)
  21. 21. 1.0 2.0
  22. 22. • Web 3.0 1. People lie 2. People are lazy 3. People are stupid 4. Mission: impossible – know thyself 5. Schemas aren’t neutral 6. Metrics influence results 7. There’s more than one way to describe something C. Doctorow, Metacrap, 2001
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. Data ephemerality • Local vs. Web data ?! Source: Wikipedia, “Science 2.0”
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26.  User perspective  “Incomplete” sites  Dynamic information  Selective information?
  27. 27. Why I am not a luddite:
  28. 28.  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
  29. 29. summing up • Choose the system based on reports you want/need to deliver
  30. 30. … 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
  31. 31. Thanks!!

×