| At line 4 added 2 lines. |
| + ! Tuesday, May 2, 2006 |
| + |
| At line 6 added 5 lines. |
| + # Assess status and review current activities, since last teleconference. |
| + # Clarify a vision of how SEEK-Taxon could collaborate with other projects with taxon concept data. |
| + # Reach an understanding of what we have not achieved so far with SEEK Taxon, things left undone and identfy priorities for the next 18 months. |
| + # Understand the issues of long-term maintenance of SEEK Taxon products, Data resources, TOS, software tools. |
| + |
| Lines 8-11 were replaced by line 15 |
| - # Clearer vision of how to collaborate with projects that will be the bases for those collaborations |
| - # Understanding of what we have not achieved so far with SEEK Taxon, things left undone, can they be achieved in the next 18 months. |
| - # Understand the issues of long-term maintenance of SEEK Taxon products, Data resources, TOS, software tools |
| - # Identfy priorities for the next 18 months. |
| + __ Round the Table Updates: __ |
| Removed line 13 |
| - __ Round the table updates __ |
| Line 15 was replaced by line 18 |
| - ** TOS operational, MSW 2 versions, ITIS, Bob offered plant data sets |
| + ** TOS operational and on line, Mamnal Species of the World 2 versions in TOS now, also ITIS. Bob offered plant data sets. |
| Line 17 was replaced by lines 20-21 |
| - ** Kepler Actor in the ENM workflow, |
| + ** Kepler Actor in the ENM workflow, but Rob has not heard from Dan Higgins on next steps with integration with Kepler. |
| + |
| Line 19 was replaced by lines 23-24 |
| - ** Testing concept mapper |
| + ** Testing ConceptMapper, working with Bob and Laura on usability engineering |
| + |
| At line 21 added 1 line. |
| + |
| Line 23 was replaced by lines 29-30 |
| - ** Able to drop in DC records into the Viz tool, e.g. from any DiGIR provider using the MaNIS schema. |
| + ** Implemented capability to drop in Darwin Core records into the renamed TaxViz tool, from any DiGIR provider using the MaNIS schema. |
| + |
| Line 25 was replaced by line 32 |
| - ** Meeting before TDWG 2006, to create stds for plot data. Taxon concept data would be embedded in the std and in the data sets. |
| + ** Scheduled to meet prior to TDWG 2006, to create standards for plot data. Taxon concept data would be embedded in the std and in the data sets. |
| Line 27 was replaced by lines 34-35 |
| - * Susan Gauch |
| + |
| + * Susan Gauch |
| At line 29 added 1 line. |
| + |
| Lines 31-33 were replaced by lines 40-42 |
| - ** New Specify and Specify in 2007. Dave Remsen, uBIO interest |
| - |
| - __ Tasks to be finished from original objectives __ |
| + ** Released last week Specify 5.0 and have work underway for a modular Java release in 2007 which would use concepts from TOS. |
| + |
| + __ Discussion of tasks to be finished from original objectives __ |
| Removed lines 37-87 |
| - PowerPoint Presentation preparation |
| - |
| - |
| - Beginning |
| - SEEK Taxon graphic slide |
| - Show them what names are and how they are used, illustrate that names are not unique. |
| - Talk about the problems with current usage. |
| - Matt does he say in the intro that data sets need to be integrated based on concepts? If he uses that we could reuse the slide, and point out what we are doing. |
| - This issue of data integration is not as simple as matching names, bring in a book of the rules of nomenclature to illustrate the rules. |
| - |
| - What is the difference between the concept and a name? A name according to a reference that defines the concept. |
| - |
| - |
| - Jessie Significance statement of dealing with concepts and not with names –the slide of lumping and splitting the consequences of misinterpreting name lists. Changes in name over time can create errors for analysis that are artifacts of the names and concepts used through time. |
| - |
| - Say why this problem is important. In ecology you tend to look at data sets over a period of time, or over different geographical areas, and both dimensions introduce different names and concepts. Integrative and synthetic activities need to respect these changes and disambiguate the labels. Analyzing data through time and space. |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - TOS architecture, providers up and to the left. |
| - |
| - Software Demonstration 3:30 |
| - |
| - EML Discussion (4 PM) |
| - |
| - Laura’s Usability PowerPoints on Taxon Usability |
| - |
| - Future SEEK Taxon Activities |
| - Emerging projects (next 18 months) |
| - Jessie’s new funding (P*&& C%$#) , visualization tools? |
| - Long-term vision, reason for being (beyond 18 months) |
| - See October All Hands meeting notes |
| - Usability Interactions over the next 18 months |
| - |
| - ESA Booth, What will Taxon do to support, second week in August |
| - |
| - SPNHC Meeting, SEEK Taxon Poster |
| - |
| - Taxon Breakouts |
| - Laura with Bob and Xianhua review ConceptMapper usability |
| - |
| - |
| - Future Collaborations for SEEK Taxon |
| - |
| - |
| - Demonstration Project |
| Lines 89-91 were replaced by line 47 |
| - 1. SEEK Workflow idea, creating a new classification, export into TCS import to TOS, export data to conceptmapper and txax viz. |
| - 2. Map relationships between TOS and new data. |
| - 3. Marking up data with EML and GUIDS |
| + __ Review of PowerPoint Presentation preparation for NSF review by Aimee Stewart __ |
| Removed line 93 |
| - Using GARP showing impact on different classifications on noche models with ranuculus. |
| At line 94 added 1 line. |
| + * Jessie, need a strong significance statement of dealing with concepts and not with names, e.g. the slide of lumping and splitting the consequences of misinterpreting name lists. Changes in name over time can create errors for analysis that are artifacts of the choice of names and concepts used. |
| Line 96 was replaced by line 52 |
| - 1. adding common names and using them for queries might be good. |
| + * Say why this problem is important. In ecology you tend to look at data sets over a period of time, or over different geographical areas, and both dimensions introduce different names and concepts. Integrative and synthetic activities need to respect these changes and disambiguate the labels. Analyzing data through time and space. |
| At line 97 added 1 line. |
| + * TOS architecture slide, providers will be added up and to the left. |
| At line 98 added 2 lines. |
| + __ Software Demonstration __ |
| + * Jingtao demonstrated countly level occurence maps and set based spatial analysis operations at the county level of plant occurence data. Functionality closely mirrors Kartez and Meacham application for North America Flora. |
| Line 100 was replaced by lines 59-61 |
| - uBIO and Rod Paige, GBIF, Jessie, no idea on what GBIF or Europeans plans are with concepts. GBIF has catalog of life. |
| + * Laura Downey revied her NSF review presentation of PowerPoints on Taxon Usability Work |
| + ** Inquired as to SEEK-Taxon's interest in more usability analysis over the next 18 months |
| + ** Asked re ESA Annual Meeting Booth, What will Taxon do to support, second week in August |
| Removed line 102 |
| - USDA Plants, Stinger wants to do concepts. |
| Line 104 was replaced by line 64 |
| - Collections Specify Concepts, should we pursue that. |
| + __ Possible Future Collaborations for SEEK Taxon __ |
| Removed line 106 |
| - Jessie, we should not look so far into the future, the broader impacts. |
| Line 108 was replaced by line 67 |
| - Bob, authoring tools that would allow people to contribute concepts to TOS and take ownership of concepts. A way for people to author new concepts and get instant gratification. |
| + * Demonstration Project |
| Line 110 was replaced by lines 69-73 |
| - Jessie, the NHM has an EU funded project to develop two different taxonomies online. (Does not know of anyone in Europe or in the UK working with taxon concepts.) |
| + # SEEK Workflow idea, creating a new classification, export into TCS, import to TOS, export data to Conceptmapper and to TaxViz. |
| + # An application, or (Kepler?) workflo for mapping relationships between TOS and new data. |
| + # Marking up data with EML and GUIDS |
| + # Using GARP showing impact on different classifications on noche models with ranuculus. |
| + # Adding common names and using them for queries might be good. |
| Line 112 was replaced by lines 75-79 |
| - Laura – what problems are we solving or whom? |
| + * Collaborations with others |
| + ** Other people "doing concepts" -- uBIO, Rod Paige, New Zealand research lab, GBIF plans for concepts are unclear. |
| + ** USDA Plants, Stinger wants to do concepts. |
| + ** Specify could implement an itnerface to the TOS for collections management using concepts. |
| + ** Bob, authoring tools that would allow people to contribute concepts to TOS and take ownership of concepts. A way for people to author new concepts and get instant gratification. |
| Line 114 was replaced by lines 81-83 |
| - Laura going back to four taxonomists. Prime problem is that the data they want is not online. Solution was to create a taxonomic tool to capture taxon information. |
| + * Laura – what problems are we solving or whom? |
| + ** Laura going back to four taxonomists. Prime problem is that the data they want is not online. Solution was to create a taxonomic tool to capture taxon information. |
| + ** Wanted a collaborative tool for authoring inventories of major groups, wanted literature online. |
| Line 116 was replaced by lines 85-86 |
| - Wanted a collaborative tool for authoring inventories of major groups, want literature online. |
| + * Jessie, that's fine but we are working on a solution for our own problems, not those. |
| + ** Next steps Jessie: Getting people who have concepts and manage concepts on Board and get them to start managing concepts. Letting us serve their data. |
| Line 118 was replaced by line 88 |
| - Jessie, we have a solution for our own problems. |
| + * Bob we should use the demonstration project first to sell the vision to the community. Take something to them and convince them to use it. |
| Removed line 120 |
| - Next steps Jessie: Getting people who have concepts and manage concepts on Board and get them to start managing concepts. Letting us serve their data. MSW may have more data. |
| Removed line 122 |
| - Bob we should use the demonstration project first to sell the vision to the community. Take something to them and convince them to use it. |
| Line 124 was replaced by line 92 |
| - Discussion about things that we have not done. (Suggested by Jessie). |
| + __ Discussion about things that we have not done. (Suggested by Jessie) __ |
| Line 126 was replaced by lines 94-96 |
| - Where we failed, not getting decent concept people on Board with us earlier. What does ‘on board’ mean? No clear idea. |
| + * Jessie |
| + ** It was an oversight not to get active researchers using concepts on board with us earlier. |
| + ** We really need a good demonstration project in the short term one that demonstrates our capabilities but not directed to solving any particular outreach problem for any particular group, it is too late in the project for that. |
| Line 128 was replaced by lines 98-100 |
| - Jessie we really need a good demonstration project in the short term one that demonstrates our capabilities but not directed to solving any particular outreach problem for any particular group, it is too late in the project for that. |
| + * Laura, what problem is being solved? Can you tell me in three sentences. |
| + ** Review of the four taxonomist’s comments we interviewed on usability issues in Santa Barbara |
| + ** Jessie, the real issue for us that ecologists are our users. We need to serve them, and to convince them that what they are doing is wrong to ignore concepts. We need to convince them to take on these problems, without adding much or any other workload, then they will collaborate We have to mail their lives easier. |
| Line 130 was replaced by lines 102-103 |
| - Laura, what problem is being solved? Can you tell me in three sentences. |
| + * Laura, they have to see the perceived benefit to play |
| + * Bob, or they have to play by the rules. |
| At line 131 added 1 line. |
| + * Bob, the problem is that the data providers and the data consumers are two different communities. And that the providers are not entering enough metadata into the system for the data synthesis project. |
| Line 133 was replaced by line 107 |
| - Review of the four taxonomist’s comments |
| + * Jim, still likes the planetary biodiversity inventory Catfish of the World Project as an example of a potential collaborator that must manage historical and new taxon data for project needs. |
| Line 135 was replaced by line 109 |
| - Jessie the real issue for us that ecologists are our users. We need to serve them, and to convince them that what they are doing is wrong to ignore concepts. We need to convince them to take on these problems, without adding much or any other workload, then they will collaborate We have to mail their lives easier. |
| + * Jessie, likes the idea of hooking up with real world science, but thinks it is too late in the project to link up to a another project and learn how they manage data. |
| Line 137 was replaced by line 111 |
| - They have to see the perceived benefit to play -- Laura, or They have to play by the rules -- Bob. |
| + * Bob suggested the Appalachian Trail project funded by the park service as a way to integrate data. Lots of data sets. |
| Removed line 139 |
| - Bob the problem is that the data providers and the data consumers are two different communities. And that the providers are not entering enough metadata into the system for the data synthesis project. |
| Line 141 was replaced by lines 114-115 |
| - Catfish project. Jessie like the idea of doing real world science, but it is too late in the project to link up to a another project and learn how they manage data. |
| + __ Big Unresolved SEEK-Taxon Issues as illustrated by dry-erase board diagram by Jessie. __ |
| + (incomplete notes here -- ed., who has the photograph?) |
| Line 143 was replaced by lines 117-125 |
| - Bob suggested the Appalachian Trail project funded by the park service as a way to integrate data. Lots of data sets. |
| + # Getting data from data providers in TCS. (a) getting concepts by scraping, e.g., and (b) mapping among concepts. Also mapping source materials into something meaningful into TOS concepts is also a problem. Mapping from the DB to the TOS Making concepts out of names essentially. (But we support nominal concepts.) Need to get data providers “On Board” |
| + # Generating LSIDs do not do that yet. |
| + # We CAN output TCS into ConceptMapper and into the visualization tool but it will take some work to maintain both. |
| + # Need a tool for resolving concepts in TOS. |
| + # Need a tool to take a TOS concept in TCS and import it into a tool that will mark them up in EML. Morpho might be extended, but maybe not. The LSIDs need to be put in the ecological data sets. Martin is going to be working ‘with one of these other guys’ to look into developing a tool for this with other grant funding. |
| + # Also need to deal with the algorithms for matching. The more complete data we have in TOS the more sophisticated the algorithm can be. |
| + # Questions: |
| + ## Who would work on these pieces to complete the picture (i.e. data flow and functionalities)? |
| + ## How would the process work in SEEK Taxon? |
| Lines 146-147 were replaced by lines 128-130 |
| - Jessie -- Big Unresolved SEEK-Taxon Issues (Diagram on the dry-erase Board). |
| - (incomplete notes here). |
| + * Matt--A good use of TOS would be to filter the data that comes back from the digger providers. |
| + ** Right now Mephitis strings are grouped by string matching and it would be better to use the TOS to find the matching concepts and to group them that way. |
| + ** All the sidebar does now is query all of the collections that are registered in GBIF, we should put TOS in between that do a TOS query from left panel in Kepler to filter and validate concepts. |
| Lines 149-154 were replaced by line 132 |
| - 1. Getting data from data providers in TCS. (a) getting concepts by scraping, e.g., and (b) mapping among concepts. Also mapping source materials into something meaningful into TOS concepts is also a problem. Mapping from the DB to the TOS Making concepts out of names essentially. (But we support nominal concepts.) Need to get data providers “On Board” |
| - 2. Generating LSIDs do not do that yet. |
| - 3. We CAN output TCS into ConceptMapper and into the visualization tool but it will take some work to maintain both. |
| - 4. Need a tool for resolving concepts in TOS. |
| - 5. Need a tool to take a TOS concept in TCS and import it into a tool that will mark them up in EML. Morpho might be extended, but maybe not. The LSIDs need to be put in the ecological data sets. Martin is going to be working ‘with one of these other guys’ to look into developing a tool for this with other grant funding. |
| - 6. Also need to deal with the algorithms for matching. The more complete data we have in TOS the more sophisticated the algorithm can be. |
| + ** EML does not have the unrestricted value space problem. The structured data are very well defined and constrained. Structured queries are not implemented in Kepler yet, the left pane just does a string search on title, abstract, etc. even though the EML has the structured data. |
| Lines 156-158 were replaced by line 134 |
| - Questions: |
| - 1) Who would work on these pieces? |
| - 2) How would the process work in SEEK Taxon. |
| + * Matt-looking for someone to develop a tool for marking up EML data records. Mark, Shawn and Josh are researching a global core ontology for other kinds of concepts. |
| At line 159 added 1 line. |
| + * Jessie looking for a graduate student to develop visualization tools for comparing graphs. With any luck it would be useful for comparing ontologies. |
| Line 161 was replaced by line 138 |
| - Matt--A good use of TOS would be to filter the data that comes back from the digger providers. Right now Mephitis strings are grouped by string matching and it would be better to use the TOS to find the matching concepts and to group them that way. |
| + ! Wednesday, May 3, 2006 |
| Line 163 was replaced by line 140 |
| - All the sidebar does now is query all of the collections that are registered in GBIF, we should put TOS in between that do a TOS query from left panel in Kepler to filter and validate concepts. |
| + * Practice Demonstrations of NSF site review talks |
| Line 165 was replaced by line 142 |
| - EML does not have the unrestricted value space problem. The structured data are very well defined and constrained. Structured queries are not implemented in Kepler yet, the left pane just does a string search on title, abstract, etc. even though the EML has the structured data. |
| + ! Thursday, May 4, 2006, 8-11 AM. |
| Lines 167-168 were replaced by line 144 |
| - Should Specify produce TCS records for its taxon data? |
| - Should Specify produce EML for the collections databases? |
| + __ SEEK_Taxon Breakout Session to discuss priorities and next steps __ |
| At line 169 added 3 lines. |
| + * Make a stronger connection to Kepler |
| + * Need to get more data, and to get the bat data mapped, Bob offered plant concept data also |
| + * Jim offered to pursue the identification and engagement of a Mammalogist to help with bat concept data mapping |
| Line 171 was replaced by lines 150-157 |
| - Roger Hyam in the U.K. and LandCare New Zealand did an implementation of TCS. |
| + * Discussion about the need for sample data to be able to show end-to-end connectivity and workflow with concepts. |
| + ** Bob, Alan Weakly has 6500 taxa, 8 classifications; just having two classfications (MSW) with just names is likely not enough, we need comprehensive data sets with many characters, over time. |
| + ** Bob, we have all of data for the classifications for Juglandaceae (trees). Also have complete Ranunculus data, with full concept information. Bob committed to producing some data for the TOS by about the end of June. |
| + ** Discussion of bat data, bat people, value in finding some bat survey and observation data sets that could be marked up. |
| + ** Jim offered to pursue some bat leads. Talk to Bob Timm (KU), Don Wilson (USNM), MSW bat treatment author, possibly Texas Tech lab. |
| + ** Dave, what about searching EML data sets for taxonomic names? Aimmee-did that, not much there. |
| + ** Rich Pyle once offered (we think) angel fish concept, data, we could check to see if that is still on the table. |
| + ** Dave Thau, someone mused, likely also has ant data concepts from the Ant web project. |
| Removed line 173 |
| - Matt-looking for someone to develop a tool for marking up EML data records. Mark, Shawn and Josh are researching a global core ontology for other kinds of concepts. |
| Removed line 175 |
| - Jessie looking for a graduate student to develop visualization tools for comparing graphs. With any luck it would be useful for comparing ontologies. |
| Removed line 177 |
| - Discussion at 4:30 PM, of embedding TCS data into an EML record. |
