University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

> [@rdmpage](https://twitter.com/rdmpage)[@AlexHardisty](https://twitter.com/AlexHardisty)[@proibiosphere](https://twitter.com/proibiosphere)
> Well, take part in the process of clarification!
>
> --- Pensoft Publishers (@Pensoft) [June 10,
> 2014](https://twitter.com/Pensoft/statuses/476448848572067841)

  
I\'ve been involved in a few Twitter exchanges about the upcoming
[pro-iBiosphere
meeting](http://wiki.pro-ibiosphere.eu/wiki/Final_Conference) regarding
the \"Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System (OBKMS)\", which is
the topic of the meeting. Because for the life of me I can\'t find an
explanation of what \"Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System\"
is, other than vague generalities and appeals to the magic pixie dust
that is \"Linked Open Data\" and \"RDF\", I\'ve been grumbling away on
Twitter.  
  
So, here\'s my take on what needs to be done. Fundamentally, if we are
going to link biodiversity information together we need to build a
network. What we have (for the most part) at the moment is a bunch of
nodes (which you can think of as data providers such as natural history
collections, databases, etc., or different kinds of data, such as names,
publications, sequences, specimens, etc.).  
  
![1](http://lh3.ggpht.com/-1KAPFoCAkvw/U5gne46fP2I/AAAAAAAADaM/Mbx5XTcWKjo/1.png?imgmax=800 "1.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="300" height="241"}  
We\'d like a network, so that we can link information together, perhaps
to discover new knowledge, to serve as a pathway for analyses that
combine different sorts of data, and so on:  
  
![2](http://lh3.ggpht.com/-kKx-O09ClKQ/U5gnflRsBkI/AAAAAAAADaU/TkaVTX9k8XE/2.png?imgmax=800 "2.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="300" height="241"}  
A network has nodes and links. Without the links there\'s no network.
The fundamental problem as I see it is that we have nodes that have
clear stakeholders (e.g., individual, museums, herbaria, publishers,
database owners, etc.). They often build links, but they are typically
incomplete (they don\'t link to everything that is relevant), and
transitory (there\'s no mechanism to facilitate persistence of the
links). **There is no stakeholder for whom the links are most
important**. So, we have this:  
  
![3](http://lh6.ggpht.com/-lpMCa1B7TM8/U5gngqyDzMI/AAAAAAAADac/6vsdr7yANiM/3.png?imgmax=800 "3.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="300" height="242"}  
This sucks. I think **we need an entity, a project, and organisation,
whatever you want to call it for whom the network is everything**. In
other words, they see the world like this:  
![4](http://lh6.ggpht.com/-_xqqnb-d9iE/U5gnhJkVHyI/AAAAAAAADak/-PFfc1n8s_I/4.png?imgmax=800 "4.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="300" height="237"}  
If this is how you view the world, then your aim is to build that
network. You live or die based on the performance of that network. **You
make sure the links exist, they are discoverable, and that they
persist.** You don\'t have the same interests as the nodes, but clearly
you need to provide value to them because they are the endpoints of your
links. But you also have users who don\'t need the nodes per see, they
need the network.  
  
If you buy this, then you need to think about how to grow the network.
**Are there network effects that you can leverage**, in the same way
CrossRef has with publishers submitting lists of literature cited linked
to DOIs, or in social media where you give access to your list of
contacts to build your social graph?  
  
If the network is the goal, you don\'t just think \"let\'s just stick
HTTP URLs on everything and it will all be good\". You can think like
that if you are a node, because if the links die you can still persist
(you\'ll still have people visiting your own web site). But **if you are
a network and the links die, you are in big trouble**. So you develop
ways to make the network robust. This is one reason why CrossRef uses an
identifier based on indirection, it makes it easier to ensure the
network persists in the face of change in how the nodes serve their
data. What is often missed is that **this also frees up the nodes**,
because they don\'t need to commit to serving a given URL in perpetuity,
indirections shields them from this.  
  
In order to serve users of the network, you want to ensure you can
satisfy their needs rapidly. This leads to things like caching links and
basic data about the end points of those links (think how Google caches
the contents of web pages so if the site is offline you may still find
what you are looking for).  
  
If your business depends on the network, then you need to think how you
can create incentives for nodes to join. For example, **what services
can you offer them that make you invaluable to the nodes?** Once you
crack that, then all sorts of things can happen. Take structured markup
as an example. Google is driving this on the web using
[schema.org](http://schema.org). If you want to be properly indexed by
Google, and have Google display your content in a rich form (e.g.,
thumbnails, review ratings, location, etc.) you need to mark up your
page in a way Google understands. **Given that some businesses live or
die based on their Google ranking, there\'s a strong incentive for web
sites to adopt this markup**. There\'s a strong incentive for Google to
encourage markup so that it can provide informative results for its
users (otherwise they might rely on \"social search\" via Facebook and
mobile apps). This is the kind of thing you want the network to aim
for.  
  
In summary, this is my take on where we are at in biodiversity
informatics. The challenge is that the organisations in the room
discussing this are typically all nodes, and I\'d argue that by
definition they aren\'t in a position to solve the problem. **You need
to pivot (ghastly word) and think about it from the perspective of the
network.** Imagine you were to form a company whose mission was to build
that network. How would you do it, how would you convince the nodes to
engage, what value would you offer them, what value would you offer
users of the network? If we start thinking along those lines, then I
think we can make progress.


I've been involved in a few Twitter exchanges about the upcoming pro-iBiosphere meeting regarding the "Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System (OBKMS)", which is the topic of the meeting. Because for the life of me I can't find an explanation of what "Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System" is, other than vague generalities and appeals to the magic pixie dust that is "Linked Open Data" and "RDF", I've been grumbling away on Twitter.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

The vision thing - it's all about the links