[API-users] Some questions from a begginer

[Eduardo Dalcin]

​​
Hi Rod,

As you saw in the other message, the main problem that we have now is have
the same voucher represented twice because NYBG had a DIGIR source and now
have an IPT source. People at NYBG said that they ask GBIF to remove DIGIR,
but still there. Maybe it occurs with other sources as well.

Related with the feedback of the data cleaning process I'm indeed
interested in this discussion, but I'm not sure if this list is the best
forum to do it.

Here at the National Center for Flora Conservation - CNCFlora, at the risk
assessments, we just use occurrences that were validated by experts,
taxonomically and spatially. This information may be useful, especially if
the expert made some correction or comment on the occurrence. I can see
that this is related with annotation initiatives, such as AnnoSys and
FilteredPush. In my ideal and fantastic world, we would have an annotation
feature on GBIF occurrences, where experts can interact with the material.
In our Virtual Herbarium of Repatriated Plants
<https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/b2036a078664eab467d602e1f1513c7641fadf73?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.herbariovirtualreflora.jbrj.gov.br%2Fjabot%2FherbarioVirtual%2FConsultaPublicoHVUC%2FResultadoDaConsultaNovaConsulta.do%3Flingua%3Den&signature=7efc3ae92fb5b099>,
the experts can suggest new names if they have a login.

However, what is usual is the duplication of efforts for georeferencing the
legacy occurrences. For example, different efforts, methodologies and
uncertainty levels have been applied in different duplicates of the same
occurrence, held by different herbaria.

I thought that the feedback about data improvement should be sent directly
to the data provider but, please, if there is something else let me know.

Cheers,

Eduardo



--------------------------------
*Eduardo Dalcin
<https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/a5d3cb382ef00884ad61ce9e38743772edafd567?url=http%3A%2F%2Feduardo.dalc.in&signature=d9152b1fbbf0db39>*
Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro - JBRJ
e-mail: edalcin at jbrj.gov.br
Trabalho / Work: +55 21 3204 2116
--------------------------------
*e-mail alternativo / * *alternate email:** edalcin at jbrj.org
<edalcin at jbrj.org>*
--------------------------------
Agendar reunião / Schedule a meeting: http://agendar.dalc.in
<https://mailtrack.io/trace/link/3639d653caa48a1efeb08d1c342b7ffd0f5bd30b?url=http%3A%2F%2Fagendar.dalc.in&signature=07f7b0c516192bcd>

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Hi Eduardo,
>
> it would be interesting to have example of the kinds of problems you
> encounter with GBIF data, so that we can look at was to fix the problems.
> It would also be interesting to know whether you would be able to provide
> GBIF with the corrections you make to GBIF data. It seems clear that lots
> of people are cleaning data in their own projects, but that doesn’t filter
> back to GBIF.
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
> Professor of Taxonomy
> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
> Email:  Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk
> Tel:  +44 141 330 4778
> Skype:  rdmpage
> Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/rdmpage
> LinkedIn:  http://uk.linkedin.com/in/rdmpage
> Twitter:  http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog:  http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> ORCID:  http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
> Citations:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
> ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 17:34, Eduardo Dalcin <edalcin at jbrj.org> wrote:
>
> The problem with these tools (LontraHarvest, OpenRefine, etc.) is that
>> they are just data *retrieval* tools, not providing for data analytical and
>> representation functionalities
>>
>
> Mauro, for me this is a ​blessing! :)
>
> At CNC Flora workflow, the data from GBIF is useless the way it is,
> because it have to be validated first, taxonomically and spatially. Only
> after the process of the cleaning, georeferencing and validation with the
> expert, the data will be analyzed to take part of the risk assessment.
>
> Cheers
>
> Eduardo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> API-users mailing list
> API-users at lists.gbif.org
> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/api-users/attachments/20150915/56eaeb97/attachment.html>