| Line 13 was replaced by line 13 |
| - __ Round the table updates __ |
| + __ Round the table updates: __ |
| Line 27 was replaced by line 27 |
| - * Susan Gauch |
| + * Susan Gauch |
| Removed line 37 |
| - PowerPoint Presentation preparation |
| At line 38 added 1 line. |
| + __ Review of PowerPoint Presentation preparation for NSF review by Aimee Stewart __ |
| Removed lines 40-45 |
| - 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. |
| Line 47 was replaced by line 41 |
| - 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. |
| At line 48 added 1 line. |
| + ** 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. |
| Line 50 was replaced by line 45 |
| - 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. |
| + ** TOS architecture slide, providers will be added up and to the left. |
| Line 52 was replaced by lines 47-48 |
| - 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. |
| + __ 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. |
| At line 53 added 3 lines. |
| + * 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 lines 55-77 |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - |
| - 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 |
| - |
| Line 87 was replaced by line 63 |
| - Demonstration Project |
| + Demonstration Project |
| Line 93 was replaced by line 69 |
| - Using GARP showing impact on different classifications on noche models with ranuculus. |
| + Using GARP showing impact on different classifications on noche models with ranuculus. |
| Lines 108-118 were replaced by line 84 |
| - 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. |
| - |
| - 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.) |
| - |
| - 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, want literature online. |
| - |
| - Jessie, we have a solution for our own problems. |
| + * 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 120 was replaced by line 86 |
| - 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. |
| + * 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.) |
| Line 122 was replaced by line 88 |
| - 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. |
| + * Laura – what problems are we solving or whom? |
| Line 124 was replaced by line 90 |
| - Discussion about things that we have not done. (Suggested by Jessie). |
| + ** 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. |
| Line 126 was replaced by line 92 |
| - Where we failed, not getting decent concept people on Board with us earlier. What does ‘on board’ mean? No clear idea. |
| + ** Wanted a collaborative tool for authoring inventories of major groups, want literature online. |
| Line 128 was replaced by line 94 |
| - 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. |
| + * Jessie, we have a solution for our own problems. |
| Line 130 was replaced by line 96 |
| - Laura, what problem is being solved? Can you tell me in three sentences. |
| + ** 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. |
| At line 131 added 1 line. |
| + * 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 133 was replaced by line 100 |
| - Review of the four taxonomist’s comments |
| + * Discussion about things that we have not done. (Suggested by Jessie). |
| Line 135 was replaced by line 102 |
| - 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. |
| + ** Where we failed, not getting decent concept people on Board with us earlier. What does ‘on board’ mean? No clear idea. |
| Line 137 was replaced by line 104 |
| - They have to see the perceived benefit to play -- Laura, or They have to play by the rules -- Bob. |
| + ** 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. |
| Line 139 was replaced by line 106 |
| - 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. |
| + * Laura, what problem is being solved? Can you tell me in three sentences. |
| Line 141 was replaced by line 108 |
| - 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. |
| + ** Review of the four taxonomist’s comments we interviewed on usability issues in Santa Barbara |
| Line 143 was replaced by line 110 |
| - Bob suggested the Appalachian Trail project funded by the park service as a way to integrate data. Lots of data sets. |
| + * 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. |
| At line 144 added 1 line. |
| + * They have to see the perceived benefit to play -- Laura, or They have to play by the rules -- Bob. |
| Lines 146-147 were replaced by line 114 |
| - Jessie -- Big Unresolved SEEK-Taxon Issues (Diagram on the dry-erase Board). |
| - (incomplete notes here). |
| + * 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. |
| Lines 149-154 were replaced by line 116 |
| - 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. |
| + * 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. |
| Lines 156-158 were replaced by line 118 |
| - Questions: |
| - 1) Who would work on these pieces? |
| - 2) How would the process work in SEEK Taxon. |
| + * 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. |
| At line 159 added 1 line. |
| + * Bob suggested the Appalachian Trail project funded by the park service as a way to integrate data. Lots of data sets. |
| Line 161 was replaced by line 122 |
| - 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. |
| + * Jessie -- Big Unresolved SEEK-Taxon Issues as illustrated by dry-erase board diagram. (incomplete notes here -- ed.) |
| Line 163 was replaced by lines 124-129 |
| - 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. |
| + # 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. |
| Line 165 was replaced by lines 131-133 |
| - 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. |
| + # Questions: |
| + ## Who would work on these pieces? |
| + ## How would the process work in SEEK Taxon. |
| Removed lines 167-168 |
| - Should Specify produce TCS records for its taxon data? |
| - Should Specify produce EML for the collections databases? |
| At line 169 added 3 lines. |
| + * 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. |
| Line 171 was replaced by line 140 |
| - Roger Hyam in the U.K. and LandCare New Zealand did an implementation of TCS. |
| + ** 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. |
| Line 173 was replaced by line 142 |
| - 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. |
| + * 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. |
| Line 175 was replaced by line 144 |
| - Jessie looking for a graduate student to develop visualization tools for comparing graphs. With any luck it would be useful for comparing ontologies. |
| + * 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. |
