[API-users] Some questions from a begginer

Tue Sep 15 16:28:39 CEST 2015

It seems insane to us on the aggregator / technical side of things, but 
we get a ton of collections people telling us at iDigBio "We've never 
been able to look at our data on a map before." Or they do know how to 
use mapping tools, but they've only ever looked at a handful of points 
at once, and never the thousand or so that form the X=Y straight line.

Part of the solution to that we're trying to get across is to really get 
providers to come to iDigBio and interact with their own data in our 
systems. This is both because we want feedback on how it comes out, and 
because we're trying to build a sense of engagement with the process. We 
(as a community) desperately need collections to see data publishing as 
less "throwing data over the fence" and more of a collaborative effort 
with aggregators.

People have been criticizing aggregated biodiversity data quality for 
years, but its rare that I meet anyone who views themselves as part of 
the solution. Its just an impediment to getting the "real work" done.

- Alex

On 09/15/2015 10:04 AM, Roderic Page wrote:
> Hi Eduardo,
>
>
>> 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.
>
> In an ideal world, yes the feedback should go to the data provider, 
> things get fixed, then GBIF gets updated. However, data providers 
> don’t always have the resources to fix things. I’m also interested in 
> how many of the data issues that come up are things that GBIF itself 
> can detect and flag. In my experience, there are issues that the 
> provider was unaware of, but become apparent once the data is exposed 
> by GBIF.
>
> For example, here’s a case of a data set supplied to GBIF with a 
> serious error https://github.com/ttu-vertnet/ttu-mammals/issues/12 
>  This was obvious in GBIF simply by looking at the map, but apparently 
> not to the data provider (this error has now been fixed).
>
> The more we know about the sort of errors that can happen, the better 
> placed we are to develop tools to catch them.
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> ResearchGatehttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
>
>
>> On 15 Sep 2015, at 14:53, Eduardo Dalcin <edalcin at jbrj.org 
>> <mailto:edalcin at jbrj.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> 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 <mailto:edalcin at jbrj.gov.br>
>> Trabalho / Work: +55 21 3204 2116
>> --------------------------------
>> *e-mail alternativo / **alternate email:**edalcin at jbrj.org 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
>>     Tel: +44 141 330 4778 <tel:%2B44%20141%20330%204778>
>>     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 <http://iphylo.blogspot.com/>
>>     ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-9767
>>     Citations:
>>     http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=4Z5WABAAAAAJ
>>     ResearchGatehttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roderic_Page
>>
>>
>>>     On 14 Sep 2015, at 17:34, Eduardo Dalcin <edalcin at jbrj.org
>>>     <mailto: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 <mailto:API-users at lists.gbif.org>
>>>     http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b274ebbe/attachment-0001.html>