Comments
Displaying results 1 to 5 out of 13
| Lee Belbin | |
| Sunday, 08-10-06 02:57 I think you done a simple (good) illustration for the need for RDF, ontologies and GUIDs. The only thing I would add would be a few sentences that cover semantics, ontologies and GUIDs and the (obvious) links between them. Maybe just making some of the assumptions explicit (and/or with links). This makes the illustration more stand-alone, an better able to communicate to a wider audience. An example I added was (subject-predicate-object) - and it would be useful to give a single example such as "Proceratium google - legs - 6" or something more intelligent. |
|
| Gregor Hagedorn from Federal Biological Research Center (BBA) | |
| Thursday, 26-04-07 00:12 I think the above analysis of technologies is particular to a specific use case, namely querying and interrelating large institutional data sets. The problem does not describe the problem many of us are facing, and ths the analysis may be incorrect for use cases where data exchange and interoperability is called for. Examples are the production of archivable, well defined data sets, including identification keys, online fauna and floras, etc. The problems of complexity involved with RDF are completely ignored. Is it "Proceratium google - legs - 6" or "Proceratium google, legs - number - 6" and "Proceratium google, legs - color - black". How to express "Proceratium google probably 6 legs (fewer legs considered abnormal)" or "Proceratium google legs - sample size - 30"? RDF triples are easily understood for the simple examples, but not in real world examples. RDF has been developed as a metadata language, in which case all kinds of simplification are in place. |
|
| Paul Flemons from Australian Museum | |
| Monday, 14-05-07 09:00 ok so here is the first comment for the digital stories blog. There has been some discussion already preceeding the setting up of this blog subject. At this stage I just want to get peoples ideas on what they like and dont like about the digital stories (or videos) they have seen so far and to throw up ways of presenting TAPIR and LSID to an audience that Lee has established as being aimed at "the level of managers within natural history organizations". We will then apply the process we use for developing digital stories here at the Museum to those ideas and come up with various drafts for comment before finalising the product. |
|
| Paul Flemons from Australian Museum | |
| Monday, 14-05-07 09:30 I have been putting some thought into the stories and have had one very useful meeting with Lynda and Mel from the team here at the Australian Museum, more to follow. As a result I have some ideas to put forward for discussion, I will number them to enable easy reference as the discussion proceeds. 1. In developing the story I came up with three main approaches to telling the story of TAPIR and LSIDs':- a) data focused descriptive approach - where we simply describe what they are and what they do, using specimens, databases and maps as the main visual themes b) problem focused - where we identify problems that biodiversity data is crucial to the solution of and then show how TAPIR and LSID contribute. This would involve images of environmental problems, climate change maybe??, species extinctions etc c)a combination of the above with visual themes combining both problems needing solutions and the specimens and maps. I think "a)" is easier to build a story for and is possibly more relevant for our target audience. The "b)" option may be better for a broader audience. The "c)" option may be trying to pack too much in. Thoughts? 2. One video or two? Lee initially asked for two videos, one for TAPIR and one for LSID. I thought we could possibly combine them into one video. My intial thoughts were to begin with TAPIR and how it opens up a world of data or "unleashes it" as suggested by Renato. We could use Renatos idea of draws of specimens opening and combine that with maps of locations of collections. Then as the story progresses we drill down into a single location and see its LSID before then radiating out to other related specimen records all accessed through the LSIDs. I will go into more detail after I meet with Lynda and Mel tomorrow. The down side of one video is whether we can get the message across for both of these in 3 or 4 minutes of video. My suggestion at this stage is to suck it and see whether we can do one video rather than two. I just think TAPIR and LSID are so interlinked in design and concept that we can communicate them together better than if we separate them out. Thoughts please! My brain hurts - time to go |
|
| Lee Belbin from Blatant Fabrications Pty Ltd | |
| Tuesday, 15-05-07 06:04 I think we should aim for approach A as this seems like an easier place to start. There is nothing stopping us from identifying an example of a problem that TAPIR and LSIDs solve. We want to avoid the (dangerous) approach of a solution looking for a problem. I really want two videos. Reason's being a) We will want to use them separately, b) We will hopefully have at least one for each major TDWG activity/group/standard and we may want to mix and match for different circumstances and c) I can't see justice being done to anything in less than ~3-4 minutes. I would be keen to do a video on Donald's Universal Biodiversity Data Bus. This would include mention of LSIDs (or at least identifiers), TAPIR, ontologies. This corresponds to the TDWG common development architecture. But, I figure we need a few successes on simpler videos before we would tackle this one. LSIDs and TAPIR are a priority. |
|
Blog RSS Feed
