[Zoobank-list] GBIF GUID Workshop Report

[Yde de Jong]

Dear Richard,

Yes, we should certainly take into consideration the possibility of a 
joint proposal. I will have a look at your NSF links.

Firstly I think we have to start drafting text blocks or chapters of 
subjects to be considered as elements for discussion groups, which 
later can be included into proposals. Could we start some 
brainstorming?


Content & function:

(a) The relevant set of acts and data types to be included.

(b) How has the code to be amendment with additional rules to 
accommodate on-line registration (continuing the ZooBank Technical 
Discussion Paper)? Should some current regulations be adapted (e.g. 
gender adaptation)?

(c) What will be the new procedures to register new names and 
nomenclatural acts (continuing the ZooBank Technical Discussion 
Paper), also with respect to IPR and SCI ('registration=publishing') 
related issues?

(d) What additional kinds of standardisation would be profitable for ZooBank?
As part of Index Kewensis the botanist have for instance standardised 
their author names (see: Brummitt and Powell's 'Authors of Plant 
Names'). This is of great help for the digitalization of plant 
species and other virtual tasking. At least we could start with some 
formalization for every new, future contributor of ZooBank. Or should 
this be a cross-linked 'side system'.

(e) What additional data types should ZooBank include (or 
cross-links), like a digital copy of the original description? Should 
this additional data types be mandatory or not? Should a type 
designation be (mandatory) linked to the relevant specimen (as 
virtual data object)?

(f) ZooBank will be important to support the developments of 
web-publishing systems on taxonomy (like on-line revisions) as 
anticipated for instance within EDIT workpackage 4, to be run by 
Berlin (Walter Berendsohn). Especially the link 
'registration=publishing' should carefully be considered within this 
context.


User requirements:

(g) From a practical point of view: How do we expect the taxonomists 
to use the system, meaning how do we provide an appropriate, workable 
interface (see also item 'f')?


Technical requirements:

(h) What are the consequences of the above requirements (functional 
model) for the set up of the information system (technical model)?

(i) How to adapt the system optimally to deal with LSIDs and 
TDWG-GUIDs? See also the model of split responsibilities as already 
put forward.


Politically (internally):

(j) What are the main arguments to establish ZooBank for our own purposes?

(k) What are the social bottle-necks for engaging the zoological community?


Backward indexing:

(l) How will we establish backward indexing? What will be the quality 
criteria? What resources will be used? Do we prefer to use meta 
resources or original GSDs and local databases? What will be the 
expected effort (to ask for data managers in the proposal)? Etc.


Politically (externally):

(m) How do we 'sell' our ideas to the outside world and fundraising instances?


Could you (all) please review the above listing?

Kind regards,

Yde




>Yde --
>
>This is very exciting, indeed!  I wonder if there would be some value in
>trying to coordinate a joint proposal to the U.S. NSF.  Several possible
>funding opportunities seem a possible fit (e.g.,
>http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/about.jsp, http://www.nsf.gov/bio/dbi/about.jsp).
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20060207/98cc6e83/attachment.html