The Bio Commons Concept




May, 2004
Tom Moritz
          AMNH
Digital “Libraries”?
Stages of Digital Library Development




  Stage           Date                  Sponsor                                         Purpose


                                     NSF/ARPA/NASA
I:                                                               Experiments on collections of digital materials
                   1994
Experimental


                 1998/199
II:                                                              Begin to consider custodianship, sustainability, user
                    9          NSF/ARPA/NASA, DLF/CLIR
Developing                                                       communities

                     ?
                                 Funded through normal
III: Mature                                                 Real sustainable interoperable digital libraries
                                       channels?
   
   
  Howard Besser. Adapted from The Next Stage: Moving from Isolated Digital Collections to
  Interoperable Digital Libraries by First Monday, volume 7, number 6 (June 2002),
  URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_6/besser/index.html
   
Zoological Record Citations by Publisher Type
                           (1978-2002)



Natural History                                Association
 Institutions/                Other
  Non-profit                   0%              University
      9%
      Government
                                               Commercial
           10%
        Commercial           Association       Government
           17%                  58%
            University                         NH Institutions/Non-
               6%                              profit
                                               Other
For example: the
  American Museum of
   Natural History has
published 240,000+ pages
  of scientific literature.
“Modalities of Constraint” on Open Access
                     to Data, Information, Knowledge

                                     Market




                                      Data
    Architecture                  Information
    (Technology)
                                                                        Law
                                   Knowledge




                                     Norms
Adapted from: Lessig, L. Code and other laws of cyberspace. NY, Basic Books, 1999.
August 30, 2002               BiodiversityCommons / WSSD
                              BiodiversityCommons
The “Digital Divide”?
A graphic depiction of the digital divide




http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg
BioDiverse Areas of the World
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg
A schematic representation
“The field of knowledge is the common
      property of all mankind “
                      Thomas Jefferson 1807
Universal Declaration of Human
              Rights
              Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of
 opinion and expression; this right
 includes freedom to hold opinions
 without interference and to seek,
 receive and impart information and
 ideas through any media and
 regardless of frontiers.
           (emphasis added)
          http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND
               DEVELOPMENT (1992)
                     Principle 10
Environmental issues are best handled with
  participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant
  level. At the national level, each individual shall have
  appropriate access to information concerning the
  environment that is held by public authorities,
  including information on hazardous materials and
  activities in their communities, and the opportunity
  to participate in decision-making processes. States
  shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and
  participation by making information widely available.
  Effective access to judicial and administrative
  proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be
  provided
 


         Convention on Biological Diversity: Article 17
 
 
                         Exchange of Information

    3. The Contracting Parties shall facilitate the exchange of 
       information, from all publicly available sources, relevant to 
       the conservation and sustainable use of biological 
       diversity, taking into account the special needs of 
       developing countries.

    2. Such exchange of information shall include exchange
        of results of technical, scientific and socio-economic
        research, as well as information on training and
        surveying programmes, specialized knowledge,
        indigenous and traditional knowledge as such and in
        combination with the technologies referred to in
        Article 16, paragraph 1. It shall also, where feasible,
         include repatriation of information.

          http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0&a=cbd-17
What is to be done…?
“…we propose a dual strategy, one that
    c o n t r a c t u a l l y r e in f o r c e s t h e p u b l ic
    d o ma in for data that exists within the ambit of the federal
    government and a n o t h e r t h a t
    c ont r ac t ual l y r ec ons t r uc t s a
    r e s e a r c h c o mmo n s f o r d a t a (a n d
    o t h e r f o r ms o f in f o r ma t io n ) in
    a c a d e mia a n d t h e p r iv a t e s e c t o r . We
    argue that excessively rigid efforts to keep scientific data
    free of private control will end by yielding less and less
    data to the public domain, whereas a contractually
    reconstructed commons for data, while less pure in theory,
    will in practice make more data more accessible for
 H. research purposes in the long run. reconstructed research commons
    Reichman and Paul F. Uhlir, “A contractually
for scirntific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment,” L a w
a n d C o n t e mp o r a r y P r o b l e ms V o l . 6 6 : 3 15 - 4 6 2 W i n t e r -
S p r in g 2 0 0 3 .
“To make this strategy work, the funding agencies,
       universities, and scientific organizations mu s t
       a g r e e t o a b a s ic s e t o f g r o u n d
       r u l e s , wit h t h e g o a l o f p r e s e r v in g
                                    b
       t h e d a t a c o mmo n s f o r r e s e a r c h
       p u r p o s e s wit h o u t imp e d in g
       in s t it u t io n a l a c t o r s o r s in g l e
       r e s e a r c h e r s f r o m e n j o y in g t h e
       b e n e f it s o f a p p r o p r ia t e
       c o mme r c ia l iz a t io n in t h e p r iv a t e
       s ec t or .“

J. H. Reichman and Paul F. Uhlir, “A contractually reconstructed research commons
for scirntific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment,” L a w
a n d C o n t e mp o r a r y P r o b l e ms V o l . 6 6 : 3 15 - 4 6 2 W i n t e r -
S p r in g 2 0 0 3 .
A definition of the “Public Domain”
“The public domain is a range of uses of information that
  any person is privileged to make absent individualized
  facts that make a particular use by a particular person
  unprivileged.”
Conversely:
“The enclosed domain is the range of uses of information
  as to which someone has an exclusive right, and that no
  other person may make absent individualized facts that
  indicate permission from the holder of the right, or
  otherwise privilege the specific use under the stated
  facts.”

Yochai Benkler, “Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraints
   on enclosure of the Pulic Domain,” NYU Law Review Vol. 74 (May,
   1999):362.

November 11, 2002     BiodiversityCommons / World Heritage
                      BiodiversityCommons
What is a “Commons” ???
• A commons is a limited and conditional zone of fair
  use (defined both legally and technically)
• A commons permits sustainable use of a resource
  without jeopardizing original ownership rights
• Supports control of patrimonial / property rights
  required by owners as required by owners (for
  example: indigenous peoples, national governments);
  protects against unauthorized commercial use
• BUT also does permit authorized commercial uses
  (i.e. is compatible with market mechanisms )
• protects organizational/individual “moral rights” (i.e.
  rights of authors)
Digital Commons?

Digital resources as “public goods” are:
• non-rivalrous (near-zero cost for additional
  increments of use)
• non-excludable (i.e.of potentially universal benefit)
• universally accessible (potentially)
      (But economic inequities and newly emergent
      legal/technical barriers may deny these benefits)


Reichman, Jerome H. and Paul F. Uhlir, Promoting Public Good Uses of Scientific Data: A
Contractually Reconstructed Commons for Science and Innovation.
http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/ReichmanandUhlir.pdf
The Commons




THE ROLE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DATA AND INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSIUM
Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, Editors Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain Office of
International Scientific and Technical Information Programs Board on International Scientific Organizations Policy and Global Affairs Division, National
Research Council of the National Academies, p. 5
Digital “Objects”???

      Formats?
     Heritability?
     (Metadata?)
Conservation data information and
                   knowledge
        is widely dispersed but vaguely
      synthesized and weakly “integrated”
                                    Time-based media (film,
 Specimen collections               video, recorded sounds)
  preserved & living (museums,      Bibliographic indices (e.g.
                                     Zoological Record 1864-
  herbaria, botanical gardens,
                                     present) & Authority Files
  zoos, aquaria and culture
                                    Observational data on
  collections)
                                     occurrences of species
 Derivatives and “virtual”         Maps (analog or digital)
  specimens and samples
                                    Environmental Data
 Collateral collections (nests,    Archives and manuscripts
  etc)                               (field and lab notes)
 Genetic sequence data             Expertise: the experience-
 Scientific publications &          based knowledge of
  “gray literature”                  individuals or cultures
 Images of all types (satellite
  to electro-micrographs)
“Image Families”
                   Optimal use of digital objects
                   depends on “heritability”--
                   defined in terms of:
                         •technical integrity (of
                         image)
                         •semantic properties
                         •legal ownership
                   Each arrow implies the
                   necessary transfer of
                   a complete set of metadata



                   From:Howard Besser. The Next
                   Stage: Moving from Isolated Digital
                   Collections to Interoperable Digital
                   Libraries by First Monday, volume
                   7, number 6 (June 2002),
                   URL:
                   http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7
                   _6/besser/index.html
The “small science,” independent investigator approach traditionally has
       characterized a large area of experimental laboratory sciences, such as
       chemistry or biomedical research, and field work and studies, such as
       biodiversity, ecology, microbiology, soil science, and anthropology. The data
       or samples are collected and analyzed independently, and the resulting data
                                                independently
       sets from such studies generally are heterogeneous and unstandardized, with
                                                                  unstandardized
       few of the individual data holdings deposited in public data repositories or
       openly shared.
               The data exist in various twilight states of accessibility, depending on
                                                            accessibility
       the extent to which they are published, discussed in papers but not revealed, or
       just known about because of reputation or ongoing work, but kept under
       absolute or relative secrecy. The data are thus disaggregated components of
       an incipient network that is only as effective as the individual transactions
       that put it together. Openness and sharing are not ignored, but they are not
                   together
       necessarily dominant either. These values must compete with strategic
       considerations of self-interest, secrecy, and the logic of mutually beneficial
       exchange, particularly in areas of research in which commercial applications
       are more readily identifiable.
The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium.
Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, Eds. Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public
Domain Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs Board on International Scientific Organizations Policy and
Global Affairs Division, National Research Council of the National Academies, p. 8
“the zone of
                    informal data exchanges,”

               (credited to: Stephen Hilgartner and Sherry Brandt-Rauf )




The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a
Symposium. Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, Eds. Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and
Information in the Public Domain Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs Board on International
Scientific Organizations Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Research Council of the National Academies, p. 8
The “small science,” independent investigator approach traditionally has characterized a
      large area of experimental laboratory sciences, such as chemistry or biomedical
      research, and field work and studies, such as biodiversity, ecology, microbiology, soil
      science, and anthropology. The data or samples are collected and analyzed
      independently, and the resulting data sets from such studies generally are
      independently
      heterogeneous and unstandardized, with few of the individual data holdings deposited
                           unstandardized
      in public data repositories or openly shared.
                                   The data exist in various twilight states of accessibility,
                                                                                accessibility
      depending on the extent to which they are published, discussed in papers but not
      revealed, or just known about because of reputation or ongoing work, but kept under
      absolute or relative secrecy. The data are thus disaggregated components of an
      incipient network that is only as effective as the individual transactions that put it
      together. Openness and sharing are not ignored, but they are not necessarily dominant
      together
      either. These values must compete with strategic considerations of self-interest, secrecy,
      and the logic of mutually beneficial exchange, particularly in areas of research in which
      commercial applications are more readily identifiable.




The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium.
Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, Eds. Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public
Domain Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs Board on International Scientific Organizations Policy and
Global Affairs Division, National Research Council of the National Academies, p. 8
Synthesis? Integration?
   Interoperability?
“Synthesis”? / “Integration”?
“Synthesis” :
The analytical, logical effort to complete integral information
  sets by well-defined, rigorous inference.


“Integration” :
The design and implementation of technology for the digital
  capture, and coherent linking of data, information and/or
  knowldege
“a full spectrum of views on interoperability…”
  • the use of common tools and interfaces that provide a
    superficial uniformity for navigation and access but rely
    almost entirely on human intelligence to provide any
    coherence of content
  • primarily syntactic interoperability (the interchange of
    metadata and the use of digital object transmission
    protocols and formats based on this metadata rather
    than simply common navigation, query, and viewing
    interfaces) as a means of providing limited coherence of
    content, supplemented by human interpretation.
  • deep semantic interoperability

Interoperability, Scaling, and the Digital Libraries Research Agenda: A Report on the May
                                            18-19, 1995
       IITA Digital Libraries Workshop August 22, 1995 Clifford Lynch ( clifford.lynch@ucop.edu)
Ontological Synthesis?
Toward a possible “ontology” of conservation information?

    “Ontology”? :

    “A formal explicit specification of a shared
      conceptualization”
    (T.A. Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontologies, Knowledge 7.)
“Darwin Core”                       – Access Points
           1.    ScientificName                             13.         Collector                       Person
           2.    Kingdom                                    14.         Year
           3.    Phylum                                     15.         Month                   Date
           4.    Class                                      16.         Day
           5.    Order                                      17.         Country
Name       6.    Family                                     18.         State/Province
           7.    Genus                                      19.         County
           8.
           9.
                 Species
                 Subspecies
                                                            20.
                                                            21.
                                                                        Locality
                                                                        Longitude
                                                                                                       Place
           10.   InstitutionCode                            22.         Latitude

 Address   11.
           12.
                 CollectionCode
                 CatalogNumber
                                                            23.
                                                            24.
                                                                        BoundingBox
                                                                        Julian Day

            Dave Vieglais Species Analyst 4/20/2000
            http://habanero.nhm.ukans.edu/presentations/Gainesville_May2000_files/v3_document.htm
The Darwin Core model (Version 1.0) suggests a
  rudimentary synthetic ontological framework for
  natural history information that can support and inform
  searching across our full corpus of literature.

This ontology has broader applicability to most types of
  digital information objects in conservation and can be
  supplemented by other core elements.
Address element (Institutional Name) [print -- alpha]
    + (Specimen #) [manuscript -- numeric]                Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex)
                                                          [manuscript -- icon]
Nominal/ Descriptive element (Scientific Name)
[manuscript -- alpha]                                       Responsibility (collectors) [print – alpha]


Responsibility
(expedition
name)
[print –alpha]




Spatial Element (geographic place name)                            Date element (mm-dd-yyyy)
[manuscript -- alpha]                                               [manuscript -- alphanumeric]




                                          Specimen Label
Specimen Label + Verso




Address element (Specimen Field #)    Nominal/ Descriptive element (Notes)
[manuscript -- numeric]               [manuscript -- alpha]
Address element (Institutional
Name) [print -- alpha]                         Negative # [print/stamp – alpha/numeric]
Spatial Element (geographic place
name) [print/typescript -- alpha]
 Responsibility (expedition name)
   [print –alpha]

Responsibility (collectors) [print – alpha]

Date element (mm-dd-yyyy)
[print/typescript – alpha/numeric]

Nominal/ Descriptive element
(Common Name) [print - alpha]
Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex)
[typescript -- alpha]

  “Catalog No.” (Collection #) [print
  – alpha/numeric]




                                              Negative Envelope
Field Notebook

 Spatial Element (geographic place name)
 [manuscript -- alpha]

 Date element (mm-dd-yyyy)
 [manuscript -- alphanumeric]
Nominal/ Descriptive element (Scientific
Name) [manuscript - alpha]

Nominal/ Descriptive element
(Common Name) [manuscript -
alpha]
Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex)
[manuscript -- icon]

 [ Responsibility (collector) [implied] ]

 [ Responsibility (expedition name) [implied] ]

       Nominal/ Descriptive element
       (Notes) [manuscript -- alpha]
Field Notebook Transcription



Field book name: Birds 7                      Page #57

                                              Taxonomic name ( Apaloderma narina brachyurum)

Field #5736                                   Catalog #158883
Locality ( Avakubi )                          Date: June 03, 1914

                                              Sex: M


Description: Larger Trogon (apaloderma narina brachyurum). Testes slightly enlarged. Stomach contained
hairless caterpillars and insects (an orthopter and a beetle). (Water color of head). When freshly killed,
these trogons have the iris always red brown, but if allowed to lie long, it may appear deep red.




                                                         http://diglib1.amnh.org/cgi-bin/database/index.cgi
Address element (Institutional Name)
    Nominal/ Descriptive              [print -- alpha]
    element (Scientific Name)
          [manuscript -- alpha] element (mm-dd-yyyy)
                              Date
                              [manuscript -- alphanumeric]      Responsibility (collector)
                                                                      [manuscript –
                                                                alpha]




                         Nominal/ Descriptive element
                         (Sex) [manuscript -- icon]

Address element: (Specimen #)                           Spatial Element (geographic place name)
[print -- numeric]                                      [manuscript -- alpha]


                                     Specimen Catalog
Nominal/ Descriptive element (Scientific Name)
“Taxon Treatment”           [print-- alpha]

                      Responsibility (author) [print – alpha]

                        Spatial Element (geographic place name)
                        [print -- alpha]


                      Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex)
                      [print-- icon]

                    Date element (mm-dd-[yy implicit])
                    [print-- alphanumeric]




                              Nominal/ Descriptive element
                               (Notes) [print – alpha
                              (continued on following pages)
Cryo Collections “Freezerworks” record structure (I)
                Entity supertype       Entity subtype
                BARCODE ID
                NUMBERADMINISTRATIVE   AMNH reg. #
                DATA                   Dept/Partner#
                                       ISIS #
                                       Studbook #
                                       Field cat. #
                                       Other ID #
                                       Coll. By?
            Responsibility             Donor
                                       Expedition #
                                       Accession date
                                       Voucher #
                                       eVoucher#
                                       Disposition
                                       Data source
                                       Availability
                                       Restrictions
                                       Permission
                                       Notification
                                       Administrative notes
                 TAXONOMY
                                       Kingdom
                                       Phylum
                                       Class
                                       Order
                                       Family
                                       Sub-Family
                                       Genus
                                       Species
   Nominal/ Descriptive                Sub-species
   element (Scientific Name)           Determined by?
                                       Authority
                                       Type
                                       Questionable ID
                                       Common name
Nominal/ Descriptive                   Citation
                                       Taxonomic history
element (Common Name)
Cryo Collections “Freezerworks” record structure (II)
        FIELD DATA                       Collected date 1
                                         Collected date 2
                                  Date   Time of collection
                                         Season of collection
                                         Continent
                                         Body of Water
                                         City
                                         Province
                                         State
                                         County
             Spatial Element             Specific locality
                                         UTM
                                         Latitude
                                         Longitude
                                         CPI
                                         Purpose of storage
                                         Ancillary collection
                                         Prepared by?
                                         Field Preparation method
                                         Storage method
                                         Field notes
                                         Habitat description



        Physical characteristic          Sex
                                         Age
                                         Height
                                         Weight
                                         Length
Nominal/ Descriptive element             Molt status
(Sex)                                    Reproduction condition
                                         Date of death
                                         Cause of death
                                         Birth type
                                         Preservation type
                                         Physical characteristic comments
Cryo Collections “Freezerworks” record structure III


                    ALIQUOT

                    Position



                                           Vat
                                           Section
                                           Rack
                                           Box
                    Results tab            Position
                                           Initial
                                           Current

                    Protocol               Aliquot type
                                           Assay
                                           Results
                    Medium
                                           Protocol date
                                           Protocol

                    Preservation History   Storage Medium
                                           Loan date
                                           Loan

                                           Preservation History
Nominal
  (Sci &
  Common
  Name)



  Date
  element

Responsibility
(author)
Metadata?
MARC Record: an expensive solution
ID 10507973BASE DG STS n REC am ENC I DCF a ENT 960314
INT REP GOV CNF 0 FSC 0 INX 1 CTY onc ILS ab
MEI FIC 0 BIO MOD CSC d CON b LAN eng PD 1995
006 p <CAS>
015 C95-980201-0 <DG>
020 0660130734 : $c $45.00 Can. <DG,CAS>
040 VXG $c VXG $d CUV <DG> 040 VXG $c VXG $d CSFA <CAS>
041 0 engfre <DG,CAS> 043 n-cn--- <DG,CAS> 082 0 574.5/0971 $2 20 <DG>
100 1 Mosquin, Theodore, $d 1932- <DG,CAS>
245 10 Canada's biodiversity : $b the variety of life, its status, economic benefits,
conservation costs, and unmet needs / $c by Ted Mosquin, Peter G. Whiting, and Don E.
McAllister ; prepared for the Canadian Centre for Biodiversity, Canadian Museum of
Nature. <DG,CAS>
246 1 $i Title on diskette: $a Biodiversit_e du Canada : $b _etat actuel, avantages
_economiques, co_uts de conservation et besoins non satisfaits <CAS>
260 Ottawa, ON, Canada : $b Canadian Museum of Nature, $c c1995. <DG,CAS>
300 xxiv, 293 p. : $b ill., maps ; $c 21 x 26 cm. <DG>
300 xxiv, 293 p. : $b ill., maps ; $c 21 x 26 cm. + $e 1 computer disk (3 1/2 in.) <CAS>
440 0 Henderson book series ; $v no. 23 <DG,CAS>
500 "French text provided on diskette"--P. [4] of cover. <CAS>
504 Includes bibliographical references (p. 259-286) and index. <DG,CAS>
538 System requirements for diskette: WordPerfect 5.1, version MS-DOS. <CAS>
650 0 Biological diversity $z Canada <DG,CAS>
650 0 Biological diversity conservation $z Canada <DG,CAS>
700 1 Whiting, Peter G. <DG,CAS>
700 1 McAllister, D. E. <DG,CAS>
710 2 Canadian Centre for Biodiversity <DG,CAS>
CAS: 901 $aO$b34363082$cCAW 902 $a19960618224327.0 903 $aCAS 904
$a19960618$b19960618$b19960618
Hol: 920 $aCAWR 922 $aZCAS 924 $aCSFA 926 $aBiodiv 930 $aQH106$b.M67 1995 932
$aRef. 935 1$lLI.96.100 DG: 901 $aV$b1374AKO$cDAVD 902 $a19980713093351.0 903
$aDG 904 $a19980713$b19980713 910 $aocm34363082
Hol: 920 $aCUVA 922 $aUCD 924 $aCU-A 926 $aShields 930 $cQH106.M67 1995
CIMI: Consortium for the Computer Interchange
             of Museum Information
From Guide to Best Practice: Dublin Core (DC 1.0 =
                   RFC 2413)
         Final Version 12 August 1999


      The 15 Dublin Core Elements
Resource Type
Format
Title
Description
Subject and Keywords
Author or Creator
Other Contributor
Publisher
Date
Resource Identifier
Source
Relation
Language
Coverage
Rights
Mediated Dublin Core (xml):
                                                 a somewhat less expensive
                   CIMI: Consortium for the Computer Interchange of Museum Information
solution                  Guide to Best Practice: Dublin Core (DC 1.0 = RFC 2413)
                                       Final Version (12 August 1999)

   Example D-4 Record Describing a Natural History Specimen
   <?xml version=”1.0” ?>
   <dc-record>
   <type>physical object</type>
   <type>original</type>
   <type>natural</type>
   <title>Prosorhynchoides pusilla</title>
   <description>Specimen fixed in Berland's fluid and preserved in 80%
            alcohol.</description>
   <description>Prepared by: Taskinen, J.</description>
   <description>Determiner: Gibson, D.I. </description>
   <description>Determination date: 1993-08-21</description>
   <subject>parasite</subject>
   <subject>fluke</subject>
   <subject>animal</subject>
   <creator>Gibson D.I.</creator>
   <contributor>Taskinen, J.</contributor>
   <publisher>The Natural History Museum, London</publisher>
   <date>1993-08-21</date>
   <identifier>NHM 1994.1.19.1.</identifier>
   <relation>IsPartOf Bucephalidae</relation>
   <relation>Requires Esox lucius</relation>
   <coverage>Battle River</coverage>
   <coverage>Fabyan</coverage>
   <coverage>Alberta</coverage>
   <coverage>Canada</coverage>
   <rights>http://www.nhm.ac.uk/generic/copy.html</rights>
   </dc-record>
Address element (Institutional
Name) [print -- alpha]                         Negative # [print/stamp – alpha/numeric]
Spatial Element (geographic place
name) [print/typescript -- alpha]
 Responsibility (expedition name)
   [print –alpha]

Responsibility (collectors) [print – alpha]

Date element (mm-dd-yyyy)
[print/typescript – alpha/numeric]

Nominal/ Descriptive element
(Common Name) [print - alpha]
Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex)
[typescript -- alpha]

  “Catalog No.” (Collection #) [print
  – alpha/numeric]



“Native” or “Vernacular”
            Metadata”                         Negative Envelope
Transcription of “native” / “vernacular” Metadata from
             negative sleeves (Congo Project I)
221276 Medje, Congo Belge, Gamangui
Feb. 6, 1910
Leopard, male, shot by a Pygmy, with an arrow in the heart.
The two men are the Pygmies.

221277 Faradje, Congo Belge
Mar. 28, 1911
Leopard, male. Entire side view.

221278 Near Faradje, Congo Belge
Jan. 5, 1912
Matari with Lion, male.

221279 Faradje, Congo Belge
Jan. 5, 1912
Lion, male. Entire specimen, side view.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
           <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF PUBLIC "-//DUBLIN CORE//DCMES DTD 2002/07/31//EN"
           "http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/07/31/dcmes-xml/dcmes-xml-dtd.dtd">
           <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
            xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
           <rdf:Description>
           <dc:title>Leopard, male, shot by a Pygmy, with an arrow in the heart.
           The two men are the Pygmies.</dc:title>
           <dc:creator>Lang, Herbert, 1879-1957.</dc:creator>
           <dc:subject>Panthera pardus</dc:subject>
           <dc:publisher>American Museum of Natural History</dc:publisher>
           <dc:contributor>American Museum Congo Expedition,
           1909-1915</dc:contributor>
           <dc:date>Feb. 6, 1910</dc:date>
           <dc:type>Image.photographic</dc:type>
           <dc:format>jpg</dc:format>
           <dc:source>image number 221276</dc:source>
           <dc:coverage>Medje, Congo Belge, Gamangui</dc:coverage>
           <dc:rights>For conditions of use see:
           http://library.amnh.org/diglib/conditions.html</dc:rights>
           </rdf:Description>
           </rdf:RDF>




       Transformation of native metadata record to RDF/DC
Blue = native record natural language
                  Green = native record inferred/derived elements
Toward an “Ontological”
      Approach
• Application of rigorous, reductionist,
  “ontological” analysis of the problem domain
• Development of reference model for key facets
• Application of state-of-the-art tools and
  methodologies


                    Hence:

       Semantic Web applications
1
              “Semantic Web” Definitions

“ONTOLOGIES”: C o lle c t io n s         of
  s t a t e m e n t s w r it t e n in a la n g u a g e
  s u c h a s R D F t h a t d e f in e t h e
  r e la t io n s b e t w e e n c o n c e p t s a n d
  s p e c if y lo g ic a l r u le s f o r r e a s o n in g
  a b o u t t h e m . C o m p u t e r s w ill
  “u n d e r s t a n d ” t h e m e a n in g o f s e m a n t ic
  d a t a o n a We b p a g e b y f o llo w in g lin k s
  t o s p e c if ie d o n t o lo g ie s                 .


   TheSemanticWeb. T im B e r n e r s -L e e , J a m e s H e n d le r a n d O r a L a s s ila
       S C IE N T IF IC AME R IC AN S P E C IAL O N L IN E IS S U E AP R IL 2 0 0 2
1
      “Semantic Web” Definitions
“RDF”: R e s o u r c e D e s c r ip t io n F r a m e w o r k . A s c h e m e
   f o r d e f in in g in f o r m a t io n o n t h e We b . R D F
   p r o v id e s t h e t e c h n o lo g y f o r e x p r e s s in g t h e
   m e a n in g o f t e r m s a n d c o n c e p t s in a f o r m
   t h a t c o m p u t e r s c a n r e a d ily p r o c e s s . R D F c a n
   u s e X ML f o r it s s y n t a x a n d U R Is t o s p e c if y
   e n t it ie s , c o n c e p t s , p r o p e r t ie s a n d r e la t io n s .
“ONTOLOGIES”: C o lle c t io n s o f s t a t e m e n t s w r it t e n in
   a la n g u a g e s u c h a s R D F t h a t d e f in e t h e
   r e la t io n s b e t w e e n c o n c e p t s a n d s p e c if y
   lo g ic a l r u le s f o r r e a s o n in g a b o u t t h e m .
   C o m p u t e r s w ill “u n d e r s t a n d ” t h e m e a n in g o f
   s e m a n t ic d a t a o n a We b p a g e b y f o llo w in g
   lin k s t o s p e c if ie d o n t o lo g ie s .
“AGENT”: A p ie c e o f s o f t w a r e t h a t r u n s w it h o u t
   d ir e c t h u m a n c o n t r o l o r c o n s t a n t
   s TheSemanticWeb. ioim Bte o n a r sc-L em p J a m e sg H eanls le p rao v id r ad L b s s ila
     u p e r v is T n         r e c o e , lis h            o d r nd Oe                  ay
   a u s C IE N TAgIC n t sR IC ANp S P a C IAL cOo L IN E t ,S f E AP R IL a2n0d 2
         S e r . IF e AME t y ic E lly                   N lle c IS U ilt e r            0
Key Web services will be:

a digital gazetteer
•   Alexandria Project http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/;
•   TGN: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/;
•   GEOnet Names Server: http://164.214.2.59/gns/html/index.html;
a biological names resolver
•   ITIS: http://www.itis.usda.gov/;
•   Species 2000: http://www.sp2000.org/;
•   UbIO: < http:/www.ubio.org/>;
• A time authority system (including geologic time)
• An NLM UMLS-style macro-thesaurus of
  entomological and zoological descriptors.
http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.cfm?ID=862&genusname=Carcharhinus&speciesname=amboinensis
http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.cfm?id=862&lang=Chinese
http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.cfm?id=862&lang=Greek
http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/ThumbnailsSummary.cfm?ID=862
http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=39366
http://64.95.130.5/Map/OccurrenceTSAMapList.cfm?ID=862&GenusName=Carcharhinus&SpeciesName=amboinensis
International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (American Society for Investigative Pathology) (ISBER) May, 2004: ISBER: The Bio-commons concept

International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (American Society for Investigative Pathology) (ISBER) May, 2004: ISBER: The Bio-commons concept

  • 1.
    The Bio CommonsConcept May, 2004 Tom Moritz AMNH
  • 2.
  • 3.
    Stages of DigitalLibrary Development Stage Date Sponsor Purpose NSF/ARPA/NASA I: Experiments on collections of digital materials 1994 Experimental 1998/199 II: Begin to consider custodianship, sustainability, user 9 NSF/ARPA/NASA, DLF/CLIR Developing communities ? Funded through normal III: Mature Real sustainable interoperable digital libraries channels?     Howard Besser. Adapted from The Next Stage: Moving from Isolated Digital Collections to Interoperable Digital Libraries by First Monday, volume 7, number 6 (June 2002), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_6/besser/index.html  
  • 4.
    Zoological Record Citationsby Publisher Type (1978-2002) Natural History Association Institutions/ Other Non-profit 0% University 9% Government Commercial 10% Commercial Association Government 17% 58% University NH Institutions/Non- 6% profit Other
  • 5.
    For example: the American Museum of Natural History has published 240,000+ pages of scientific literature.
  • 6.
    “Modalities of Constraint”on Open Access to Data, Information, Knowledge Market Data Architecture Information (Technology) Law Knowledge Norms Adapted from: Lessig, L. Code and other laws of cyberspace. NY, Basic Books, 1999. August 30, 2002 BiodiversityCommons / WSSD BiodiversityCommons
  • 7.
  • 8.
    A graphic depictionof the digital divide http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg
  • 9.
  • 10.
  • 11.
  • 12.
    “The field ofknowledge is the common property of all mankind “ Thomas Jefferson 1807
  • 13.
    Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. (emphasis added) http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
  • 14.
    RIO DECLARATION ONENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (1992) Principle 10 Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided
  • 15.
      Convention on Biological Diversity: Article 17     Exchange of Information 3. The Contracting Parties shall facilitate the exchange of  information, from all publicly available sources, relevant to  the conservation and sustainable use of biological  diversity, taking into account the special needs of  developing countries. 2. Such exchange of information shall include exchange of results of technical, scientific and socio-economic research, as well as information on training and surveying programmes, specialized knowledge,   indigenous and traditional knowledge as such and in combination with the technologies referred to in Article 16, paragraph 1. It shall also, where feasible, include repatriation of information. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0&a=cbd-17
  • 16.
    What is tobe done…?
  • 17.
    “…we propose adual strategy, one that c o n t r a c t u a l l y r e in f o r c e s t h e p u b l ic d o ma in for data that exists within the ambit of the federal government and a n o t h e r t h a t c ont r ac t ual l y r ec ons t r uc t s a r e s e a r c h c o mmo n s f o r d a t a (a n d o t h e r f o r ms o f in f o r ma t io n ) in a c a d e mia a n d t h e p r iv a t e s e c t o r . We argue that excessively rigid efforts to keep scientific data free of private control will end by yielding less and less data to the public domain, whereas a contractually reconstructed commons for data, while less pure in theory, will in practice make more data more accessible for H. research purposes in the long run. reconstructed research commons Reichman and Paul F. Uhlir, “A contractually for scirntific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment,” L a w a n d C o n t e mp o r a r y P r o b l e ms V o l . 6 6 : 3 15 - 4 6 2 W i n t e r - S p r in g 2 0 0 3 .
  • 18.
    “To make thisstrategy work, the funding agencies, universities, and scientific organizations mu s t a g r e e t o a b a s ic s e t o f g r o u n d r u l e s , wit h t h e g o a l o f p r e s e r v in g b t h e d a t a c o mmo n s f o r r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s wit h o u t imp e d in g in s t it u t io n a l a c t o r s o r s in g l e r e s e a r c h e r s f r o m e n j o y in g t h e b e n e f it s o f a p p r o p r ia t e c o mme r c ia l iz a t io n in t h e p r iv a t e s ec t or .“ J. H. Reichman and Paul F. Uhlir, “A contractually reconstructed research commons for scirntific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment,” L a w a n d C o n t e mp o r a r y P r o b l e ms V o l . 6 6 : 3 15 - 4 6 2 W i n t e r - S p r in g 2 0 0 3 .
  • 19.
    A definition ofthe “Public Domain” “The public domain is a range of uses of information that any person is privileged to make absent individualized facts that make a particular use by a particular person unprivileged.” Conversely: “The enclosed domain is the range of uses of information as to which someone has an exclusive right, and that no other person may make absent individualized facts that indicate permission from the holder of the right, or otherwise privilege the specific use under the stated facts.” Yochai Benkler, “Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraints on enclosure of the Pulic Domain,” NYU Law Review Vol. 74 (May, 1999):362. November 11, 2002 BiodiversityCommons / World Heritage BiodiversityCommons
  • 20.
    What is a“Commons” ??? • A commons is a limited and conditional zone of fair use (defined both legally and technically) • A commons permits sustainable use of a resource without jeopardizing original ownership rights • Supports control of patrimonial / property rights required by owners as required by owners (for example: indigenous peoples, national governments); protects against unauthorized commercial use • BUT also does permit authorized commercial uses (i.e. is compatible with market mechanisms ) • protects organizational/individual “moral rights” (i.e. rights of authors)
  • 21.
    Digital Commons? Digital resourcesas “public goods” are: • non-rivalrous (near-zero cost for additional increments of use) • non-excludable (i.e.of potentially universal benefit) • universally accessible (potentially) (But economic inequities and newly emergent legal/technical barriers may deny these benefits) Reichman, Jerome H. and Paul F. Uhlir, Promoting Public Good Uses of Scientific Data: A Contractually Reconstructed Commons for Science and Innovation. http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/ReichmanandUhlir.pdf
  • 23.
    The Commons THE ROLEOF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DATA AND INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSIUM Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, Editors Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs Board on International Scientific Organizations Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Research Council of the National Academies, p. 5
  • 24.
    Digital “Objects”??? Formats? Heritability? (Metadata?)
  • 25.
    Conservation data informationand knowledge is widely dispersed but vaguely synthesized and weakly “integrated”  Time-based media (film,  Specimen collections video, recorded sounds) preserved & living (museums,  Bibliographic indices (e.g. Zoological Record 1864- herbaria, botanical gardens, present) & Authority Files zoos, aquaria and culture  Observational data on collections) occurrences of species  Derivatives and “virtual”  Maps (analog or digital) specimens and samples  Environmental Data  Collateral collections (nests,  Archives and manuscripts etc) (field and lab notes)  Genetic sequence data  Expertise: the experience-  Scientific publications & based knowledge of “gray literature” individuals or cultures  Images of all types (satellite to electro-micrographs)
  • 26.
    “Image Families” Optimal use of digital objects depends on “heritability”-- defined in terms of: •technical integrity (of image) •semantic properties •legal ownership Each arrow implies the necessary transfer of a complete set of metadata From:Howard Besser. The Next Stage: Moving from Isolated Digital Collections to Interoperable Digital Libraries by First Monday, volume 7, number 6 (June 2002), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7 _6/besser/index.html
  • 27.
    The “small science,”independent investigator approach traditionally has characterized a large area of experimental laboratory sciences, such as chemistry or biomedical research, and field work and studies, such as biodiversity, ecology, microbiology, soil science, and anthropology. The data or samples are collected and analyzed independently, and the resulting data independently sets from such studies generally are heterogeneous and unstandardized, with unstandardized few of the individual data holdings deposited in public data repositories or openly shared. The data exist in various twilight states of accessibility, depending on accessibility the extent to which they are published, discussed in papers but not revealed, or just known about because of reputation or ongoing work, but kept under absolute or relative secrecy. The data are thus disaggregated components of an incipient network that is only as effective as the individual transactions that put it together. Openness and sharing are not ignored, but they are not together necessarily dominant either. These values must compete with strategic considerations of self-interest, secrecy, and the logic of mutually beneficial exchange, particularly in areas of research in which commercial applications are more readily identifiable. The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium. Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, Eds. Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs Board on International Scientific Organizations Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Research Council of the National Academies, p. 8
  • 28.
    “the zone of informal data exchanges,” (credited to: Stephen Hilgartner and Sherry Brandt-Rauf ) The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium. Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, Eds. Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs Board on International Scientific Organizations Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Research Council of the National Academies, p. 8
  • 29.
    The “small science,”independent investigator approach traditionally has characterized a large area of experimental laboratory sciences, such as chemistry or biomedical research, and field work and studies, such as biodiversity, ecology, microbiology, soil science, and anthropology. The data or samples are collected and analyzed independently, and the resulting data sets from such studies generally are independently heterogeneous and unstandardized, with few of the individual data holdings deposited unstandardized in public data repositories or openly shared. The data exist in various twilight states of accessibility, accessibility depending on the extent to which they are published, discussed in papers but not revealed, or just known about because of reputation or ongoing work, but kept under absolute or relative secrecy. The data are thus disaggregated components of an incipient network that is only as effective as the individual transactions that put it together. Openness and sharing are not ignored, but they are not necessarily dominant together either. These values must compete with strategic considerations of self-interest, secrecy, and the logic of mutually beneficial exchange, particularly in areas of research in which commercial applications are more readily identifiable. The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium. Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, Eds. Steering Committee on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain Office of International Scientific and Technical Information Programs Board on International Scientific Organizations Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Research Council of the National Academies, p. 8
  • 30.
    Synthesis? Integration? Interoperability?
  • 31.
    “Synthesis”? / “Integration”? “Synthesis”: The analytical, logical effort to complete integral information sets by well-defined, rigorous inference. “Integration” : The design and implementation of technology for the digital capture, and coherent linking of data, information and/or knowldege
  • 32.
    “a full spectrumof views on interoperability…” • the use of common tools and interfaces that provide a superficial uniformity for navigation and access but rely almost entirely on human intelligence to provide any coherence of content • primarily syntactic interoperability (the interchange of metadata and the use of digital object transmission protocols and formats based on this metadata rather than simply common navigation, query, and viewing interfaces) as a means of providing limited coherence of content, supplemented by human interpretation. • deep semantic interoperability Interoperability, Scaling, and the Digital Libraries Research Agenda: A Report on the May 18-19, 1995 IITA Digital Libraries Workshop August 22, 1995 Clifford Lynch ( clifford.lynch@ucop.edu)
  • 33.
  • 34.
    Toward a possible“ontology” of conservation information? “Ontology”? : “A formal explicit specification of a shared conceptualization” (T.A. Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontologies, Knowledge 7.)
  • 35.
    “Darwin Core” – Access Points 1. ScientificName 13. Collector Person 2. Kingdom 14. Year 3. Phylum 15. Month Date 4. Class 16. Day 5. Order 17. Country Name 6. Family 18. State/Province 7. Genus 19. County 8. 9. Species Subspecies 20. 21. Locality Longitude Place 10. InstitutionCode 22. Latitude Address 11. 12. CollectionCode CatalogNumber 23. 24. BoundingBox Julian Day Dave Vieglais Species Analyst 4/20/2000 http://habanero.nhm.ukans.edu/presentations/Gainesville_May2000_files/v3_document.htm
  • 36.
    The Darwin Coremodel (Version 1.0) suggests a rudimentary synthetic ontological framework for natural history information that can support and inform searching across our full corpus of literature. This ontology has broader applicability to most types of digital information objects in conservation and can be supplemented by other core elements.
  • 37.
    Address element (InstitutionalName) [print -- alpha] + (Specimen #) [manuscript -- numeric] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex) [manuscript -- icon] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Scientific Name) [manuscript -- alpha] Responsibility (collectors) [print – alpha] Responsibility (expedition name) [print –alpha] Spatial Element (geographic place name) Date element (mm-dd-yyyy) [manuscript -- alpha] [manuscript -- alphanumeric] Specimen Label
  • 38.
    Specimen Label +Verso Address element (Specimen Field #) Nominal/ Descriptive element (Notes) [manuscript -- numeric] [manuscript -- alpha]
  • 39.
    Address element (Institutional Name)[print -- alpha] Negative # [print/stamp – alpha/numeric] Spatial Element (geographic place name) [print/typescript -- alpha] Responsibility (expedition name) [print –alpha] Responsibility (collectors) [print – alpha] Date element (mm-dd-yyyy) [print/typescript – alpha/numeric] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Common Name) [print - alpha] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex) [typescript -- alpha] “Catalog No.” (Collection #) [print – alpha/numeric] Negative Envelope
  • 40.
    Field Notebook SpatialElement (geographic place name) [manuscript -- alpha] Date element (mm-dd-yyyy) [manuscript -- alphanumeric] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Scientific Name) [manuscript - alpha] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Common Name) [manuscript - alpha] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex) [manuscript -- icon] [ Responsibility (collector) [implied] ] [ Responsibility (expedition name) [implied] ] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Notes) [manuscript -- alpha]
  • 41.
    Field Notebook Transcription Fieldbook name: Birds 7 Page #57 Taxonomic name ( Apaloderma narina brachyurum) Field #5736 Catalog #158883 Locality ( Avakubi ) Date: June 03, 1914 Sex: M Description: Larger Trogon (apaloderma narina brachyurum). Testes slightly enlarged. Stomach contained hairless caterpillars and insects (an orthopter and a beetle). (Water color of head). When freshly killed, these trogons have the iris always red brown, but if allowed to lie long, it may appear deep red. http://diglib1.amnh.org/cgi-bin/database/index.cgi
  • 42.
    Address element (InstitutionalName) Nominal/ Descriptive [print -- alpha] element (Scientific Name) [manuscript -- alpha] element (mm-dd-yyyy) Date [manuscript -- alphanumeric] Responsibility (collector) [manuscript – alpha] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex) [manuscript -- icon] Address element: (Specimen #) Spatial Element (geographic place name) [print -- numeric] [manuscript -- alpha] Specimen Catalog
  • 43.
    Nominal/ Descriptive element(Scientific Name) “Taxon Treatment” [print-- alpha] Responsibility (author) [print – alpha] Spatial Element (geographic place name) [print -- alpha] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex) [print-- icon] Date element (mm-dd-[yy implicit]) [print-- alphanumeric] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Notes) [print – alpha (continued on following pages)
  • 44.
    Cryo Collections “Freezerworks”record structure (I) Entity supertype Entity subtype BARCODE ID NUMBERADMINISTRATIVE AMNH reg. # DATA Dept/Partner# ISIS # Studbook # Field cat. # Other ID # Coll. By? Responsibility Donor Expedition # Accession date Voucher # eVoucher# Disposition Data source Availability Restrictions Permission Notification Administrative notes TAXONOMY Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Sub-Family Genus Species Nominal/ Descriptive Sub-species element (Scientific Name) Determined by? Authority Type Questionable ID Common name Nominal/ Descriptive Citation Taxonomic history element (Common Name)
  • 45.
    Cryo Collections “Freezerworks”record structure (II) FIELD DATA Collected date 1 Collected date 2 Date Time of collection Season of collection Continent Body of Water City Province State County Spatial Element Specific locality UTM Latitude Longitude CPI Purpose of storage Ancillary collection Prepared by? Field Preparation method Storage method Field notes Habitat description Physical characteristic Sex Age Height Weight Length Nominal/ Descriptive element Molt status (Sex) Reproduction condition Date of death Cause of death Birth type Preservation type Physical characteristic comments
  • 46.
    Cryo Collections “Freezerworks”record structure III ALIQUOT Position Vat Section Rack Box Results tab Position Initial Current Protocol Aliquot type Assay Results Medium Protocol date Protocol Preservation History Storage Medium Loan date Loan Preservation History
  • 47.
    Nominal (Sci& Common Name) Date element Responsibility (author)
  • 48.
  • 49.
    MARC Record: anexpensive solution ID 10507973BASE DG STS n REC am ENC I DCF a ENT 960314 INT REP GOV CNF 0 FSC 0 INX 1 CTY onc ILS ab MEI FIC 0 BIO MOD CSC d CON b LAN eng PD 1995 006 p <CAS> 015 C95-980201-0 <DG> 020 0660130734 : $c $45.00 Can. <DG,CAS> 040 VXG $c VXG $d CUV <DG> 040 VXG $c VXG $d CSFA <CAS> 041 0 engfre <DG,CAS> 043 n-cn--- <DG,CAS> 082 0 574.5/0971 $2 20 <DG> 100 1 Mosquin, Theodore, $d 1932- <DG,CAS> 245 10 Canada's biodiversity : $b the variety of life, its status, economic benefits, conservation costs, and unmet needs / $c by Ted Mosquin, Peter G. Whiting, and Don E. McAllister ; prepared for the Canadian Centre for Biodiversity, Canadian Museum of Nature. <DG,CAS> 246 1 $i Title on diskette: $a Biodiversit_e du Canada : $b _etat actuel, avantages _economiques, co_uts de conservation et besoins non satisfaits <CAS> 260 Ottawa, ON, Canada : $b Canadian Museum of Nature, $c c1995. <DG,CAS> 300 xxiv, 293 p. : $b ill., maps ; $c 21 x 26 cm. <DG> 300 xxiv, 293 p. : $b ill., maps ; $c 21 x 26 cm. + $e 1 computer disk (3 1/2 in.) <CAS> 440 0 Henderson book series ; $v no. 23 <DG,CAS> 500 "French text provided on diskette"--P. [4] of cover. <CAS> 504 Includes bibliographical references (p. 259-286) and index. <DG,CAS> 538 System requirements for diskette: WordPerfect 5.1, version MS-DOS. <CAS> 650 0 Biological diversity $z Canada <DG,CAS> 650 0 Biological diversity conservation $z Canada <DG,CAS> 700 1 Whiting, Peter G. <DG,CAS> 700 1 McAllister, D. E. <DG,CAS> 710 2 Canadian Centre for Biodiversity <DG,CAS> CAS: 901 $aO$b34363082$cCAW 902 $a19960618224327.0 903 $aCAS 904 $a19960618$b19960618$b19960618 Hol: 920 $aCAWR 922 $aZCAS 924 $aCSFA 926 $aBiodiv 930 $aQH106$b.M67 1995 932 $aRef. 935 1$lLI.96.100 DG: 901 $aV$b1374AKO$cDAVD 902 $a19980713093351.0 903 $aDG 904 $a19980713$b19980713 910 $aocm34363082 Hol: 920 $aCUVA 922 $aUCD 924 $aCU-A 926 $aShields 930 $cQH106.M67 1995
  • 50.
    CIMI: Consortium forthe Computer Interchange of Museum Information From Guide to Best Practice: Dublin Core (DC 1.0 = RFC 2413) Final Version 12 August 1999 The 15 Dublin Core Elements Resource Type Format Title Description Subject and Keywords Author or Creator Other Contributor Publisher Date Resource Identifier Source Relation Language Coverage Rights
  • 51.
    Mediated Dublin Core(xml): a somewhat less expensive CIMI: Consortium for the Computer Interchange of Museum Information solution Guide to Best Practice: Dublin Core (DC 1.0 = RFC 2413) Final Version (12 August 1999) Example D-4 Record Describing a Natural History Specimen <?xml version=”1.0” ?> <dc-record> <type>physical object</type> <type>original</type> <type>natural</type> <title>Prosorhynchoides pusilla</title> <description>Specimen fixed in Berland's fluid and preserved in 80% alcohol.</description> <description>Prepared by: Taskinen, J.</description> <description>Determiner: Gibson, D.I. </description> <description>Determination date: 1993-08-21</description> <subject>parasite</subject> <subject>fluke</subject> <subject>animal</subject> <creator>Gibson D.I.</creator> <contributor>Taskinen, J.</contributor> <publisher>The Natural History Museum, London</publisher> <date>1993-08-21</date> <identifier>NHM 1994.1.19.1.</identifier> <relation>IsPartOf Bucephalidae</relation> <relation>Requires Esox lucius</relation> <coverage>Battle River</coverage> <coverage>Fabyan</coverage> <coverage>Alberta</coverage> <coverage>Canada</coverage> <rights>http://www.nhm.ac.uk/generic/copy.html</rights> </dc-record>
  • 52.
    Address element (Institutional Name)[print -- alpha] Negative # [print/stamp – alpha/numeric] Spatial Element (geographic place name) [print/typescript -- alpha] Responsibility (expedition name) [print –alpha] Responsibility (collectors) [print – alpha] Date element (mm-dd-yyyy) [print/typescript – alpha/numeric] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Common Name) [print - alpha] Nominal/ Descriptive element (Sex) [typescript -- alpha] “Catalog No.” (Collection #) [print – alpha/numeric] “Native” or “Vernacular” Metadata” Negative Envelope
  • 53.
    Transcription of “native”/ “vernacular” Metadata from negative sleeves (Congo Project I) 221276 Medje, Congo Belge, Gamangui Feb. 6, 1910 Leopard, male, shot by a Pygmy, with an arrow in the heart. The two men are the Pygmies. 221277 Faradje, Congo Belge Mar. 28, 1911 Leopard, male. Entire side view. 221278 Near Faradje, Congo Belge Jan. 5, 1912 Matari with Lion, male. 221279 Faradje, Congo Belge Jan. 5, 1912 Lion, male. Entire specimen, side view.
  • 54.
    <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF PUBLIC "-//DUBLIN CORE//DCMES DTD 2002/07/31//EN" "http://dublincore.org/documents/2002/07/31/dcmes-xml/dcmes-xml-dtd.dtd"> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <rdf:Description> <dc:title>Leopard, male, shot by a Pygmy, with an arrow in the heart. The two men are the Pygmies.</dc:title> <dc:creator>Lang, Herbert, 1879-1957.</dc:creator> <dc:subject>Panthera pardus</dc:subject> <dc:publisher>American Museum of Natural History</dc:publisher> <dc:contributor>American Museum Congo Expedition, 1909-1915</dc:contributor> <dc:date>Feb. 6, 1910</dc:date> <dc:type>Image.photographic</dc:type> <dc:format>jpg</dc:format> <dc:source>image number 221276</dc:source> <dc:coverage>Medje, Congo Belge, Gamangui</dc:coverage> <dc:rights>For conditions of use see: http://library.amnh.org/diglib/conditions.html</dc:rights> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> Transformation of native metadata record to RDF/DC Blue = native record natural language Green = native record inferred/derived elements
  • 55.
  • 56.
    • Application ofrigorous, reductionist, “ontological” analysis of the problem domain • Development of reference model for key facets • Application of state-of-the-art tools and methodologies Hence: Semantic Web applications
  • 57.
    1 “Semantic Web” Definitions “ONTOLOGIES”: C o lle c t io n s of s t a t e m e n t s w r it t e n in a la n g u a g e s u c h a s R D F t h a t d e f in e t h e r e la t io n s b e t w e e n c o n c e p t s a n d s p e c if y lo g ic a l r u le s f o r r e a s o n in g a b o u t t h e m . C o m p u t e r s w ill “u n d e r s t a n d ” t h e m e a n in g o f s e m a n t ic d a t a o n a We b p a g e b y f o llo w in g lin k s t o s p e c if ie d o n t o lo g ie s . TheSemanticWeb. T im B e r n e r s -L e e , J a m e s H e n d le r a n d O r a L a s s ila S C IE N T IF IC AME R IC AN S P E C IAL O N L IN E IS S U E AP R IL 2 0 0 2
  • 58.
    1 “Semantic Web” Definitions “RDF”: R e s o u r c e D e s c r ip t io n F r a m e w o r k . A s c h e m e f o r d e f in in g in f o r m a t io n o n t h e We b . R D F p r o v id e s t h e t e c h n o lo g y f o r e x p r e s s in g t h e m e a n in g o f t e r m s a n d c o n c e p t s in a f o r m t h a t c o m p u t e r s c a n r e a d ily p r o c e s s . R D F c a n u s e X ML f o r it s s y n t a x a n d U R Is t o s p e c if y e n t it ie s , c o n c e p t s , p r o p e r t ie s a n d r e la t io n s . “ONTOLOGIES”: C o lle c t io n s o f s t a t e m e n t s w r it t e n in a la n g u a g e s u c h a s R D F t h a t d e f in e t h e r e la t io n s b e t w e e n c o n c e p t s a n d s p e c if y lo g ic a l r u le s f o r r e a s o n in g a b o u t t h e m . C o m p u t e r s w ill “u n d e r s t a n d ” t h e m e a n in g o f s e m a n t ic d a t a o n a We b p a g e b y f o llo w in g lin k s t o s p e c if ie d o n t o lo g ie s . “AGENT”: A p ie c e o f s o f t w a r e t h a t r u n s w it h o u t d ir e c t h u m a n c o n t r o l o r c o n s t a n t s TheSemanticWeb. ioim Bte o n a r sc-L em p J a m e sg H eanls le p rao v id r ad L b s s ila u p e r v is T n r e c o e , lis h o d r nd Oe ay a u s C IE N TAgIC n t sR IC ANp S P a C IAL cOo L IN E t ,S f E AP R IL a2n0d 2 S e r . IF e AME t y ic E lly N lle c IS U ilt e r 0
  • 59.
    Key Web serviceswill be: a digital gazetteer • Alexandria Project http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/; • TGN: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/; • GEOnet Names Server: http://164.214.2.59/gns/html/index.html; a biological names resolver • ITIS: http://www.itis.usda.gov/; • Species 2000: http://www.sp2000.org/; • UbIO: < http:/www.ubio.org/>; • A time authority system (including geologic time) • An NLM UMLS-style macro-thesaurus of entomological and zoological descriptors.
  • 63.
  • 64.
  • 65.
  • 68.
  • 69.
  • 70.