| Line 1 was replaced by line 1 |
| - !!! 15-17 February 2005, Santa Barbara, California, USA |
| + !!! 15-17 February 2005, Santa Barbara, California, USA (Rain!) |
| Lines 5-10 were replaced by lines 5-9 |
| - ! Taxonomists/Users: |
| - * Carl Ferrarres (all catfish species project, systematist) |
| - * Dan Graf (Philadelphia) bivalves, systematics |
| - * Mike Catarino (SB, California beetles) (Ronald persona) |
| - ** nomenclature, phylogeographic, |
| - * Paul Valence Scott (Santa Barbara, marine bivalves) |
| + ! Systematist Users: |
| + * Carl Ferraris (Oregon) All catfish species project, systematist |
| + * Dan Graf (Acad Nat Sci, Philadelphia) fresh water bivalves, systematist |
| + * Mike Caterino (SBNHM, California beetles) (Ronaldo Persona!), systematist |
| + * Paul Valentich Scott (SBNHM, marine bivalves), systematist |
| At line 11 added 2 lines. |
| + The four systematists were interviewed by Usability Engineer Laura Downey and Jim Beach on 15 Feb, and the results of those interviews were presented to the group on 16 Feb. The results are not attached here to protect the privacy of the interviewees, but were disseminated by e-mail to SEEK-Taxon members present at the meeting. |
| + |
| Line 13 was replaced by lines 14-27 |
| - * Jim Beach, Laura Downey, Nico Franz, Xianhua Liu, Bob Peet, Jessie Kennedy, Martin Graham, Robert Gales, Susan Gauch, Aimee Stewart |
| + * Jim Beach, Nico Franz, Xianhua Liu, Bob Peet, Jessie Kennedy, Martin Graham, Robert Gales, Susan Gauch, Aimee Stewart, with Laura Downey, SEEK Usability Engineer |
| + |
| + !! [TaxonFunctionsAndUsability] |
| + |
| + !! [CaseStudiesAndSMSIntegration] |
| + |
| + !! [DeveloperConventions] |
| + |
| + !! Summary of Meeting Discussion |
| + |
| + Application software development work on the four identified priority functions will proceed based on the findings of the usability analysis led by Laura Downey culiminating in a task analysis with Kate Jones in April. The results of the analysis will be presented at the May meeting in Estes Park, where prototype design will be discussed and software development objectives will be formulated. April 26/27 meeting will produce user interface requirements, then need scoping from developers |
| + |
| + |
| + GUI applications developed within SEEK-Taxon must be designed to work with the web APIs of the SEEK-Taxon Taxonomic Object Server. |
| Line 15 was replaced by lines 29-30 |
| - !! Functions to implement ([SeekTaxonTools]) |
| + * Laura Downey will: |
| + ** advise on the materials needed for the April 26 meeting with Kate Jones to undertake a task analysis of her taxonomic concept management practices. |
| Lines 17-19 were replaced by lines 32-39 |
| - ! Current Focus |
| - 1. TCS creation function |
| - * create TCS from user input data |
| + * Aimee/Robert will: |
| + ** work on fixing the link from the LSID server to the TOS. |
| + ** finish installation of Hibernate to map data objects to relational database design for the TOS, |
| + ** will work on getting more data into the system as data is provided to them from Nico and Xinhua. |
| + ** Aimee will attend the SMS meeting in Davis as an advance party to divine the potential interaction between the Taxon and SMS working groups. Aimee and Rob's recent phone call with Shawn at UC Davis, concluded that SMS viewed Taxon as just another Ecogrid service for concept resolution, and that the SEEK-Taxon database approach would handle the queries and operations that a Kepler Actor would seek to execute. |
| + ** Send out links to TOS demo soon, when all working together |
| + ** Open dialogs with SMS (include Matt)in preparation for the May meeting with them. |
| + ** Rob will work with Xquark to make mappings between xml schemas and relational databases, so that xml documents can be put in without parsing. He will try to get that promising technology to work for one week, then move on. |
| Removed lines 21-22 |
| - 2. Viewing in multiple ways (for scientists/policy makers too) |
| - * __Interactive__ function for viewing existing matching concepts and decision making |
| Lines 24-25 were replaced by lines 42-48 |
| - 3. Visualization Function (Small scale) |
| - * Filter by different attributes, View and edit info in TOS in different manners |
| + * Nico will: |
| + ** Nico will develop a primer that will explain to a professional taxonomist what SEEK Taxon's perspective is on managing and mapping published taxonomic concepts. This will be shown to Kate prior to the task analysis on April 26/27. |
| + ** Contact Kate Jones, verify her availability and willingness for April 26 task analysis |
| + ** Clarify with Bob and Jessie remaining issues about TCS, LC, EML |
| + ** Provide Martin and Aimee with select weevil classifications |
| + ** Collaborate with Xianhua in finding high quality concepts online to scrape. |
| + ** Stand by for additional requests |
| Removed lines 27-28 |
| - 4. Multi-classification Visualization function (Large scale down to small) |
| - * Several trees - see multiple matching concepts from a query within their classification trees |
| Lines 30-32 were replaced by lines 51-53 |
| - ! Backend or later |
| - 5. EML taxonomic data creation - function to create whatever EML group decides upon (EML group) |
| - * plugin to Morpho |
| + * Xianhua will: |
| + ** work on getting data from the literature from flora North America and any of the other things from the e-floras page. |
| + ** Susan will send him some generic code for scraping web pages for data |
| Lines 34-35 were replaced by lines 55-58 |
| - 6. Other Schema to TCS mapping (behind the scenes) |
| - * XSLT transform? |
| + * Martin will: |
| + ** Get data from Dan Graf and put his concept data into their classification vizualization tool to assess effectiveness of the same. |
| + ** Create some prototypes for relating concepts |
| + ** Create protype for museum people to view their taxonomies |
| Removed lines 37-40 |
| - 7. Merge datasets (later) |
| - * need input from SEEK |
| - * unified concepts for 2 datasets containing taxa that can be analyzed together |
| - * important, but later, many issues |
| Lines 42-44 were replaced by line 61 |
| - 8. Peer Review function (low priority) |
| - * Way to filter for UNPUBLISHED data in the TOS for particular user/editor community |
| - * Use visualization function |
| + * Next Teleconferences on 14 March, 15:30 UTC and 19 April, 16:00 UTC |
| Line 46 was replaced by line 63 |
| - !! Misc Discussion |
| + !! Misc Notes |
| At line 47 added 1 line. |
| + * What is the User Interface of taxonomic resolution through Kepler |
| Removed lines 49-207 |
| - !! Personas |
| - ! Ronald |
| - * Community ecologist |
| - * Taxonomic expertise in particular taxa in geographic region |
| - * keep track of community |
| - * use taxonomic data available to improve classification of community |
| - * capture info |
| - * datasets persist over time for monitoring and consistency in treatment |
| - * data compatible with similar efforts in other geo areas |
| - |
| - !! User information |
| - * ITIS is not useful, concept and how it was developed is wrong |
| - ** currently looking at data just at face value, names only |
| - ** looking at old data, changes over tiime |
| - * Sharing, integration of data, names, is that a problem? - yes, it's our job |
| - ** If can determine relationships b/w different uses of a name, will correct |
| - * Distinguish between nomenclature and usage |
| - * JK - how do you separate names vs meaning? |
| - ** lots of times concepts introduced in papers, with no name attached |
| - ** a name with no author string can be assumed to be the original concept |
| - ** poorly annotated names cannot be resolved - won't bother |
| - * Need a collaborative tool to look at differences of opinion over time - literature, images, type specimens |
| - * Don't care to document geographic and typological? changes of concepts over time - provide the references for those who are interested in this. Perhaps JK is overestimating the importance of this historical information |
| - * Paradox - want all the info, synonymies, etc available, but also want a single, simple list |
| - * Who is going to populate this database? |
| - ** Bob - start fresh, with new info (ask about his point here) |
| - * don't give too much authority to "online", this data is transient, don't confuse with archived data |
| - * Dan - revisions of his species are just reshuffling, table of valid species, maintain separate family, genus, species, Fritz Haas and Simpson, [http://mussel-project.net], valid species assoc with an author, attached to nomen, |
| - * Paul would like our tools to not only handle quagmire of legacy data, but help us go forward |
| - * Brian Fisher - ants in Madagascar - several kilos of ants every month for 7 years - very few identifications completed. Now can objectively identify from DNA overnight. |
| - |
| - !! Target users |
| - |
| - Wed 16 Feb 2005 |
| - |
| - ! Providers of Data |
| - * P1 Taxonomists |
| - * P2 Aggregators |
| - * P3 Publishers |
| - |
| - ! Users of Data |
| - * Amateur taxonomists |
| - * Scientists/ecologists |
| - ** E1 Ecologists creating datasets |
| - ** E2 Ecologists trying to answer broad-scale global questions |
| - ** E3 Scientists trying to help policy makers make decisions |
| - * Public |
| - * Government decision makers |
| - |
| - ! Our tasks |
| - 1. Populate database |
| - ** harvest |
| - ** P1/E2 help relate concepts |
| - *** First 4 functions above |
| - *** Tasks |
| - **** add known concepts |
| - **** create new concepts |
| - **** relate existing concepts |
| - |
| - !! BEAM Use Case (Call with Kate Jones) |
| - |
| - * Want old datasets, old treatments/classifications of bats |
| - * Has mappings (digital format) b/w names as in Wilson/Reeder with valid names 1993 |
| - * some geographic ranges - difficult with past names |
| - * will find out what others do wrt identifying species from old data |
| - * Nico: want to track species naming for a group back to Linneaus (she laughs) |
| - * Interesting: Pipistrellus genus, red bat, Molossidae |
| - |
| - !! Bats chosen as group |
| - * different type of migration |
| - * insectivors |
| - * ecological issues |
| - |
| - !! SMS/Taxon interaction (Call with Matt) |
| - * Minimal interaction - SMS is client of TOS - Shawn & Thau's ant demo showed problems |
| - ** They were modeling for ants - species is an instance of a class in OWL |
| - ** Info to be resolved can be done with database approach, difficult to scale up |
| - ** observations spread over thousands of species - in their approach load everything into memory |
| - ** If they contact server for each species, lots of overhead |
| - * Matt thinks lots of overlap - Taxon is special case of SMS |
| - ** Susan - Overhead dealt with by resolving datasets ahead of time and stored/indexed |
| - ** Data integration - can't easily be done ahead of time |
| - ** We are further along with working system than SMS, so that may hamper integration |
| - * Email SMS asking for OWL format for Taxon info |
| - ** did EML to OWL |
| - * JK: Where do we fit in? |
| - ** Niche modeling - search ecogrid for species occurrence data with name/species/concept overlaps |
| - ** Looking for name - may look for something precise or loosely defined |
| - ** Look for any number of taxa and return clustered groups of consistent taxa |
| - ** Want non-overlapping list of concepts for modeling? |
| - ** N-way mapping of concepts |
| - *** for mammals of NA, mammals w/in bounding box - list |
| - *** every item should represent single concept |
| - *** drag each item on canvas and user decides whether to use for analysis |
| - ** BEAM proposal that Nico sent out is good description of SEEK needs from Taxon |
| - * Digir data - may need private aggreement to use collector/date though not expose |
| - * Action items |
| - ** BEAM think about scenarios useful to Taxon |
| - *** Niche modeling case study (mostly museum data) |
| - *** Biodiversity case study (more ecological data) - is there documentation? Not yet |
| - **** Domain experts? |
| - **** 2nd week of March in UCDavis |
| - |
| - |
| - --------------------------------- |
| - |
| - !!Other proposed topics |
| - |
| - !Tools |
| - !!Tools |
| - !!!Tools |
| - !!!! |
| - * what? who? when? |
| - |
| - ! TUESDAY (Feb 15) |
| - |
| - * Brief progress reports |
| - ** Kansas – Beach |
| - ** Napier – Kennedy |
| - ** Kansas – Stewart |
| - ** Chapel Hill – Peet |
| - ** Kansas – Gauch |
| - |
| - * Discussion of usability and design - Downey |
| - |
| - * Overview of proposed tools; we have done this before, but only over the phone and not with our usability expert present. |
| - * III. Concept/Relationship/Status Exploration Tool |
| - * IV. Multi-Classification Visualization Tool (optional) |
| - |
| - * Proposals for Revision in the TCS/TES – Peet & Kennedy |
| - * Interaction with TDWG & LC – Franz & Kennedy |
| - * V. Concept/Relationship/Status Creation Tool |
| - * II. Batch-Data Import Tool (optional) |
| - |
| - * Case studies & datasets – Schildhauer & Franz |
| - ** North American Mammals in general |
| - ** Bats |
| - ** North American plants |
| - |
| - * SEEK perspective; wikipedia approach – Peet |
| - * VI. Taxonomic Proposal & Review Tool |
| - * VIII. Concept Mark-Up Tool (optional) |
| - |
| - * Publications – Kennedy |
| - ** QRB |
| - ** BioScience |
| - ** Others |
| - |
| - * Institutionalization – Beach |
| - ** KU & NCEAS |
| - ** ITIS |
| - ** USDA |
| - ** GBIF |
| - ** Euro-Med |
| - |
| - * Future Meetings – Beach |
| - ** Estes Park |
| - ** TDWG |
| - ** SEEK – November |
| Removed line 209 |
| - * Schedule and timelines |
