IPNI PhytoKeys integration


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Provider of objective nomenclatural facts – the basis for taxonomic work. Scope (vasc plants) important – botanical code is wider, and Phytokeys scope is wider. IPNI is not just a dataset – it is actively / expertly curated
  • Standardised author Standardised publication Distribution form type Details about the type and where it is held Links to associated records – this name is a validation of an earlier name. The eariler invalid record is annotated with the relevant code article Full record history on all names Data available in a structured format
  • Stats derived from 2004 onwards. Most names aren’t entered until the hard copy arrives at K / HUH library – we estimate at most 2 year time lag between publication data and entry to IPNI.
  • We’ve now 10 years worth of audit log data.
  • Question: will resolving of nomenclatural problems pre-publication be maintained on automation?
  • IPNI PhytoKeys integration

    1. 1. IPNI & PhytoKeys Integration Nicky Nicolson (RBG Kew)
    2. 2. What is IPNI?Nomenclator for vascular plants.Collaboration btw RBG Kew (UK), Harvard University Herbaria (US) and Australian National Botanic Garden, Canberra (AU)Composed of three parts: • Data • Expertise • Services
    3. 3. What data does IPNI hold?• What data types: – ICN governed nomenclatural acts – Standardised author list – Publications• Which groups: – Vascular plants• Which ranks: – Family and below
    4. 4. How is data entered?• Data entry: – From literature scanning, journals received by library at Kew, Harvard, Canberra – User reports of missing nomenclatural acts, usually accompanied by a link to digitised literature page (BHL)• How many? – About 7400 names entered in average year – About 6100 nomenclatural acts published / year – … of these about 2800 are tax. novs.
    5. 5. Curation - after data entry• Full audit history on core objects – names / authors / publications.• Average 300,000 edits on name records / year• Standardisation effort ongoing : – Assessment of nomenclatural status – Epithet – Author citation – Publication title – Collation – Year
    6. 6. Current Phytokeys “integration”• Phytokeys staff email details to IPNI• IPNI editor creates record and returns IDs to Phytokeys• ID embedded in publication email != integration…but it is an opportunity to converse about the content of the nomenclatural act, and an opportunity to correct if necessary
    7. 7. Future Phytokeys integration• Phytokeys submits structured (XML) message to IPNI service• IPNI service creates record “on-demand” and returns ID to Phytokeys in structured response• ID embedded in publicationIPNI retains control of un-suppressionNo human communication – but we need to still have the opportunity to correct
    8. 8. Evaluating itBenefits• Nomenclatural problems resolved pre- publication (workflow slower, but quality higher)• IPNI editorial role switched from keying to checking• IPNI identifiers seeded into literature• Published data more usable• Useful (automated) route into IPNICosts (some but far smaller) :• Development / testing time
    9. 9. Future• Extend this model to work with other publishers• A step towards registration? This changes the game: – Currently: a name missed is to IPNIs detriment - our dataset is deficient – With registration: a name missed will not be valid under the code