University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

The BBC web site has an article entitled [Giant deep sea jellyfish
filmed in Gulf of
Mexico](http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8638000/8638527.stm)
which has footage of *Stygiomedusa gigantea*, and mentions an associated
fish, *Thalassobathia pelagica*.  
  

::: {style="text-align:center;"}
[![AE8B4B6F-CC98-405F-90FF-390262EBE3C0.jpg](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Gct8lVAxKqQ/S9SnJTPva9I/AAAAAAAAAow/i6tmO8mZWGs/AE8B4B6F-CC98-405F-90FF-390262EBE3C0.jpg?imgmax=800){border="0"
width="400"
height="296"}](http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8638000/8638527.stm)
:::

  
  
One thing that frustrates me beyond belief is how hard it is to get more
information about these organisms. Put another way, the biodiversity
informatics community is missing a huge opportunity here. There are a
slew of services, such as [Zemanta](http://www.zemanta.com/) and
[OpenCalais.com](http://www.opencalais.com/), that can enrich the
content of a document by identifying terms and adding links. Imagine a
similar service that took taxonomic names and could provide information
and links about that name, so that sites such as the BBC could enrich
their pages. We\'ve had various attempts at this^1^, but we are still
far from creating something genuinely useful.  
  
Part of the problem is that the plethora of taxonomic databases we have
are often of little use. After fussing with Google I discover that
*Stygiomedusa gigantea* (Browne, 1910) has the synonym *Stygiomedusa
fabulosa* Russell, 1959 (see, e.g., [the WoRMS
database](http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=135311)),
but no database tells me that the genus *Stygiomedusa* was published by
Russell in *Nature* in 1959
([doi:10.1038/1841527a0](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/1841527a0)). Nor can
I readily find the original reference for (Browne, 1910) in these
databases^2^. Why is this so hard?  
  
![9B0FFA09-AF7B-4F82-98F5-C5D7DF891C5F.jpg](http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Gct8lVAxKqQ/S9SrLThduqI/AAAAAAAAAo0/HL0jQqO1Ctg/9B0FFA09-AF7B-4F82-98F5-C5D7DF891C5F.jpg?imgmax=800){border="0"
width="100" height="160" align="right"}Then when we do have information,
we fail to make it digestible. For example, the EOL page for
[*Thalassobathia pelagica*](http://eol.org/pages/223650) links to BHL
pages, but fails to point out that the pages it links belong to a single
article, and that this article (<http://biostor.org/reference/4339>) is
the original description of the fish.  
  
Publishers are increasingly interested in any tools that can embellish
their content. The organisation that gets their act together and
provides a decent service for publishers (including academic journals,
and news services such as the BBC) is going to own this space. Any
takers\...?  
  

Such as uBio [LinkIT](http://www.ubio.org/tools/linkit.php) and EOL
[NameLink](http://www.eol.org/content/page/namelink).

After finding another taxon with the author Browne 1910 in BHL, I found
*Diplulmaris (?) gigantea*, which looked like a good candidate for the
original name for the jellyfish, see
[http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1727009](http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/17270097).
This is confirmed by the Smithsonian\'s [Antarctic
Invertebrates](http://antiz.redmon.com/taxon_view.cfm?taxon=5852) site.


The BBC web site has an article entitled Giant deep sea jellyfish filmed in Gulf of Mexico which has footage of
<em>
 Stygiomedusa gigantea
</em>
, and mentions an associated fish,
<em>
 Thalassobathia pelagica
</em>
.    One thing that frustrates me beyond belief is how hard it is to get more information about these organisms. Put another way, the biodiversity informatics community is missing a huge opportunity here.

Time for some decent service

Last month EOL took the brave step of including Wikipedia content in its
pages. I say \"brave\" because early on EOL was pretty reluctant to
embrace Wikipedia on this scale (see the [report of the Informatics
Advisory Group](http://blog.eol.org/2008/05/01/iag-review-of-big/) that
I chaired back in 2008), and also because not all of EOL\'s curators
have been thrilled with this development. Partly to assuage their fears,
EOL displays Wikipedia-derived content on a yellow background to flag
its \"unreviewed\" status, such as this image of the python genus
*Leiopython*:  
  

::: {style="text-align:center;"}
![Leiopython.png](http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Gct8lVAxKqQ/S2gMpiNl0yI/AAAAAAAAAmg/wWRpeOMrb4w/Leiopython.png?imgmax=800){border="0"
width="400" height="226"}
:::

  
  
It\'s interesting to compare EOL\'s approach to Wikipedia with that
taken by the BBC, as documented in [Case Study: Use of Semantic Web
Technologies on the BBC Web
Sites](http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/BBC/). The BBC
makes extensive use of content from community-driven external sites such
as [MusicBrainz](http://musicbrainz.org/) and Wikipedia. They embed the
content in their own pages, stating where the content came from, but not
flagging it as any less meaningful or reliable than the BBC\'s own
content (i.e., no garish yellow background).  
  
Furthermore, the BBC does two clever things. Firstly:  

> To facilitate integration with the resources external to bbc.co.uk the
> music site reuses MusicBrainz URL slugs and Wildlife Finder Wikipedia
> URL slugs. This means that it is relatively straight forward to find
> equivalent concepts on Wikipedia/DBpedia and Wildlife Finder and,
> MusicBrainz and /music.

  
  
This means that if the identifier for the artist Bat for Lashes in
Musicbrainz is
<http://musicbrainz.org/artist/10000730-525f-4ed5-aaa8-92888f060f5f.html>,
the BBC reuse the \"slug\" **10000730-525f-4ed5-aaa8-92888f060f5f** and
create a page at
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/10000730-525f-4ed5-aaa8-92888f060f5f>.
Likewise, if the Wikipedia page for *Varanus komodoensis* is
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon>, then the BBC Wildlife
Finder page becomes
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/species/Komodo_dragon](http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/species/Komodo_dragon%22),
reusing the slug **Komodo_dragon**.  
  

::: {style="text-align:center;"}
![komodo.png](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Gct8lVAxKqQ/S2gXe8m9aSI/AAAAAAAAAmo/ljPKNsv2JdM/komodo.png?imgmax=800){border="0"
width="400" height="264"}
:::

  
  
Reusing identifiers like this can greatly facilitate linking between
databases. I don\'t need to do a search, or approximate string matching,
I just reuse the slug. Note that this is a two-way thing, it is trivial
for Musicbrainz to create links to BBC information, and visa versa.
Reusing identifiers isn\'t new, other examples include Amazon.com\'s
ASIN (which for books are ISBNs), and BHL reuses uBio NameBankIDs \--
want literature that mentions the Komodo dragon? Use the uBio
[NameBankID
2546401](http://www.ubio.org/browser/details.php?namebankID=2546401) in
a BHL URL <http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/name/2546401>.  
  
The second clever thing the BBC does is treat the web as a content
management system:  
  

> BBC Music is underpinned by the Musicbrainz music database and
> Wikipedia, thereby linking out into the Web as well as improving links
> within the BBC site. BBC Music takes the approach that the Web itself
> is its content management system. Our editors directly contribute to
> Musicbrainz and Wikipedia, and BBC Music will show an aggregated view
> of this information, put in a BBC context.

  
  
Instead of separating BBC and Wikipedia content (and putting the later
in quarantine as does EOL), the BBC embraces Wikipedia, editing
Wikipedia content if they feel a page need improving. One advantage of
this approach is that it avoids the need for the BBC to replicate
Wikipedia, either in terms of content (the BBC doesn\'t need to write
its own descriptions of what an organism does) or services (the BBC
doesn\'t need to develop tools for people to edit the BBC pages, people
use Wikipedia\'s infrastructure for this). Wikipedia provides core text
and identifiers, BBC provides its own unique content and branding.  
  
EOL is trying something different, and perhaps more challenging (at
least to do it properly). Given that both EOL and Wikipedia offer text
about organisms, there is likely to be overlap (and possibly conflict)
between what EOL and Wikipedia say about the same taxon. Furthermore,
there will be duplication of information such as bibliographic
references. For example, the Wikipedia content included in the EOL page
for [*Leiopython*](http://www.eol.org/pages/83248) contains a
bibliography, which includes these references:  
  
Hubrecht AAW. 1879. Notes III on a new genus and species of Pythonidae
from Salawatti. *Notes from the Leyden Museum* 14-15.  
  
Boulenger GA. 1898. An account of the reptiles and batrachians collected
by Dr. L. Loria in British New Guinea. *Annali del Museo Civico de
Storia Naturale di Genova* (2) 18:694-710  
  
The genus name *Leiopython* was published by Hubrecht (1879), and
Boulenger (1898) is cited in support of a claim that a distribution
record is erroneous. Hence, these look like useful papers to read.
Neither reference on the Wikipedia page is linked to an online version
of the article, but both have been scanned by EOL\'s partner BHL (you
can see the articles in BioStor
[here](http://biostor.org/reference/14777), and
[here](http://biostor.org/reference/14776), respectively)^1^.  
  
Problem is, you\'d be hard pressed to discover this from the EOL page.
The BHL results do list the journal *Notes from the Leyden Museum*, but
you\'d have to visit the links manually to discover whether they include
Hubrecht (1879) (they do, as well as various occurences of *Leiopython*
in the indices for the journal). In part this problem is a consequence
of [the crude way EOL handles bibliographies retrieved from
BHL](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/09/visualising-biodiversity-heritage.html),
but it\'s symptomatic of a broader problem. By simply mashing EOL and
Wikipedia content together, EOL is missing an opportunity to make both
itself and Wikipedia more useful. Surely it would be helpful to discover
what publications cited on Wikipedia pages are in BHL (or in the list of
references for hand-curated EOL pages)? This requires genuine
integration (for example by reusing existing bibliographic identifiers
such as DOIs, and tools such as OpenURL resolvers). If it fails to do
this, EOL will resemble crude pre-Web 2.0 mashups where people created
web pages that had content from external sites enclosed in

tags.  
  
The contrast between the approaches adopted by EOL and the BBC is pretty
stark. The BBC has devolved text content to external, community-driven
sites that it thinks will do a better job than the BBC could alone. EOL
is trying to integrate Wikipedia into it\'s own text content, but
without addressing the potentially massive duplication (and, indeed,
possible contradictions) that are likely to arise. Perhaps it\'s time
for EOL to be as brave as the BBC, as ask itself [whether it is sensible
for EOL to try and occupy the same space as
Wikipedia](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-wikipedia-and-eol.html).  
  

::: {style="font-size:10px;"}
1\. Note that the bibliographic details of both papers are wanting,
Hubrecht 1879 is in volume 1 of *Notes from the Leyden Museum*, and
*Annali del Museo Civico de Storia Naturale di Genova* series 2, volume
18 is also treated as volume 38.
:::

  


Last month EOL took the brave step of including Wikipedia content in its pages. I say "brave" because early on EOL was pretty reluctant to embrace Wikipedia on this scale (see the report of the Informatics Advisory Group that I chaired back in 2008), and also because not all of EOL's curators have been thrilled with this development.

EOL, the BBC, and Wikipedia

Robert A. Gehring

Nach einem erfolgreichen Pilotprojekt zur Verbreitung von
Fernsehsendungen über P2P-Netzwerke hat sich der öffentlich-rechtliche
Rundfunk- und Fernsehsender Norwegens, Norsk Rikskringkasting AS
([NRK](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRK){target="_blank"}, via
Wikipedia), dazu entschlossen, einen eigenen BitTorrent-Tracker in
Betrieb zu nehmen.

[]{#more-956}

Gut ein Jahr ist es her, dass der NRK die in Norwegen enorm populäre,
achtteilige Fernsehserie *Nordkalotten 365* im BitTorrent-Netzwerk [zur
Verfügung
stellte](http://nrkbeta.no/norwegian-broadcasting-nrk-makes-popular-series-available-drm-free-via-bittorrent/){target="_blank"}.
Kostenlos, ohne DRM und in hoher Bildqualität --- der Pilotversuch wurde
zu einem riesigen Erfolg.

An den Erfolg möchte NRK anknüpfen und weitere Programme im Internet
bereitstellen. Um die Inhalte einfacher zugänglich zu machen und bessere
Statistiken über die Nutzung der Angebote zu erhalten, hat NRK jetzt
einen eigenen
[BitTorrent](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(Protokoll)){target="_blank"}-Tracker
(via Wikipedia) aufgesetzt. Das
[meldet](http://nrkbeta.no/norwegian-broadcasting-corporation-sets-up-its-own-bittorrent-tracker/){target="_blank"}
der NRK-Newsdienst nrkbeta. Die Politik des DRM-Verzichts will NRK
beibehalten, verweist allerdings auf Schwierigkeiten mit der
Rechteklärung.

Zum Start des neuen Angebots wird eine Fernsehserie über Menschen
gesendet, die in weit abgelegenen Winkeln des ohnehin nur spärlich
besiedelten Norwegens leben.

Auch andere, öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunkanstalten in Europa
experimentieren seit geraumer Zeit mit dem P2P-Vertrieb ihrer Sendungen.
So stellte die britische BBC schon Ende 2006 einige Sendungen für den
P2P-Vertrieb bereit. Die Europäische Union hat Anfang 2008 14 Millionen
Euro für das Forschungsprojekt P2P-Next [zur Verfügung
gestellt](http://www.golem.de/0809/62287.html){target="_blank"}. An dem
Projekt beteiligen sich unter anderem die BBC, die European Broadcasting
Union
([EBU](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ische_Rundfunkunion){target="_blank"},
via Wikipedia), Pioneer und die Universitäten in Delft und Lancaster
beteiligt. Bei der EBU wurde schon 2006 eine eigene P2P-Arbeitsgruppe
eingerichtet.

The post [Norwegisches Fernsehen setzt auf eigenen
Bittorrent-Tracker](https://irights.info/2009/03/10/norwegisches-fernsehen-setzt-auf-eigenen-bittorrent-tracker/956){rel="nofollow"}
appeared first on [iRights.info](https://irights.info){rel="nofollow"}.


Nach einem erfolgreichen Pilotprojekt zur Verbreitung von Fernsehsendungen über P2P-Netzwerke hat sich der öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk- und Fernsehsender Norwegens, Norsk Rikskringkasting AS (NRK, via Wikipedia), dazu entschlossen, einen eigenen BitTorrent-Tracker in Betrieb zu nehmen.

Norwegisches Fernsehen setzt auf eigenen Bittorrent-Tracker

Last night BBC One aired David Attenborough\'s [Charles Darwin and the
Tree of Life](http://www.bbc.co.uk/darwin/), which featured a lovely
\"fly through\" the tree of life:  
  

  
  
In conjunction with the TV show, the Wellcome Trust has launched the
[Interactive Tree of
Life](http://www.wellcometreeoflife.org/interactive/), a Flash-based
view of the tree of life. There\'s also a
[blog](http://wellcometreeoflife.blogspot.com/) about the project.
Here\'s a demo of the tree:  
  

  
  
The tree looks very nice, and a lot of work has gone into it, but I am
somewhat underwhelmed. The tree itself is tiny, and does a poor job of
conveying the relative diversity of life (e.g., no plants, bacteria, few
arthropods, etc.). It displays the tree on a 2D plane, and the user can
move relative to that plane. I\'m not convinced this is the best way to
display large trees. Something modelled on Perceptive Pixel\'s demo
might be more useful. I [blogged about
this](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2008/08/perceptive-pixel-taxonomy-demo.html)
last year, but the video host service has disappeared. You can see the
tree display 50 seconds in to the video below:  
  

  
  
There also seems to be some confusion over the license used. The
[disclaimer](http://www.wellcometreeoflife.org/about/disclaimer/) states
that it is [Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5
Generic](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), but the link
is to [Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works
3.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). There\'s a
**big** difference. The disclaimer encourages us to remix it, the linked
license says that we cannot.  
  
Out of curiosity I grabbed the code from the web site (a 1.5Gb file) and
had a quick look. The bulk of the files are media, such as images,
movies, and 3D
[Maya](http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=7635018)
models. There\'s some nice stuff here. The actual tree itself is there
in [New Hampshire eXtended](http://www.phylosoft.org/forester/NHX.html)
format. Here it is displayed in TreeView X:  
  
[![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_iyJqgNCMPmQWjDFlIz7EUmZTEYsk5ufFrgIlw6-10qzB_4RtagIjCsWkgIwMKYvGxV1h2Ro6Jwe28fmwGimHXSZd5p6LN_2mXBMBvjFRVskV_ItCNb3C32d4VxnDgV1BzeJV/s320/Untitled.png){#BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5298153393478847698
style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 254px; height: 320px;"
border="0"}](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_iyJqgNCMPmQWjDFlIz7EUmZTEYsk5ufFrgIlw6-10qzB_4RtagIjCsWkgIwMKYvGxV1h2Ro6Jwe28fmwGimHXSZd5p6LN_2mXBMBvjFRVskV_ItCNb3C32d4VxnDgV1BzeJV/s1600-h/Untitled.png){onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"}  
  
Here\'s the NHX tree itself.  
  

::: {style="font-family:Courier, fixed;font-size:10px"}
  
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Antelope:25.38857142856932
\[&&NHX:id=51129:tol=Y \], Sheep:25.38857142856932
\[&&NHX:id=51093:tol=Y \]):4.231428571428751 \[&&NHX:id=51154 \],
Cow:29.619999999998072 \[&&NHX:id=51150 \])Bovidae:33.26333333333336
\[&&NHX:id=50878:tol=Y \], Pig:62.883333333331485 \[&&NHX:id=51287:tol=Y
\]):0.978333333333334, Hippopotamus:63.86166666666491 \[&&NHX:id=30366
\]):2.445833333333335, Camel:66.30749999999811 \[&&NHX:id=30350:tol=Y
\])Artiodactyla:7.337500000000006 \[&&NHX:id=15976:tol=Y \],
Humpback_whale:73.64499999999816 \[&&NHX:id=16054 \]):9.663854166666676
\[&&NHX:id=15975 \], (((Horse:72.14374999999836 \[&&NHX:id=16255 \],
Rhino:72.14374999999836 \[&&NHX:id=16262
\])Perissodactyla:5.153125000000017 \[&&NHX:id=15980:tol=Y \],
Elephant:77.29687499999827 \[&&NHX:id=22667:tol=Y \]):4.294270833333347
\[&&NHX:id=15979 \], Aardvark:81.59114583333152 \[&&NHX:id=16881
\]):1.717708333333339):15.761701388888907 \[&&NHX:id=15974 \],
((((Brown_bear:40.2599999999984 \[&&NHX:id=123666:tol=Y \],
Polar_bear:40.2599999999984 \[&&NHX:id=123667:tol=Y
\])Ursidae:11.18333333333332 \[&&NHX:id=16015:tol=Y \],
Seal:51.443333333331715 \[&&NHX:id=16020 \]):4.473333333333327,
Dog:55.91666666666514 \[&&NHX:id=16013 \])Caniformia:11.18333333333332
\[&&NHX:id=16011 \], (Cat:40.259999999998215 \[&&NHX:id=123531:tol=Y \],
Lion:40.259999999998215 \[&&NHX:id=123566:tol=Y
\])Felidae:26.839999999999964 \[&&NHX:id=16006:tol=Y
\])Carnivora:31.9705555555556 \[&&NHX:id=15971:tol=Y
\]):0.15222222222222132, ((Mole:86.06453703703531 \[&&NHX:id=16213 \],
Shrew:86.06453703703531 \[&&NHX:id=16223 \]):3.759497354497354,
Hedgehog:89.82403439153265 \[&&NHX:id=16211
\])Insectivora:9.398743386243385 \[&&NHX:id=15968:tol=Y
\]):0.3805555555555533, (((Chimpanzee:9.143333333331611 \[&&NHX:id=26565
\], Human:9.143333333331611 \[&&NHX:id=16421:tol=Y \]):82.69666666666664
\[&&NHX:id=16412 \], Tree_shrew:91.83999999999833 \[&&NHX:id=50808
\]):4.1099999999999755 \[&&NHX:id=15962 \], Fruit_bat:95.94999999999834
\[&&NHX:id=16076 \]):3.6533333333333116 \[&&NHX:id=15961
\]):1.14166666666666, ((Hamster:56.967999999998256 \[&&NHX:id=16546 \],
Rat:56.96799999999821 \[&&NHX:id=50732 \])Eumuroida:33.211999999999804
\[&&NHX:id=16528 \], Rabbit:90.17999999999788 \[&&NHX:id=16227
\])Glires:10.565000000000104 \[&&NHX:id=15957 \]):16.484999999999623
\[&&NHX:id=15955 \], Kangaroo:117.22999999999797 \[&&NHX:id=16248
\]):31.38499999999999 \[&&NHX:id=15993 \], Platypus:148.61499999999816
\[&&NHX:id=16253:tol=Y \]):39.50999999999999 \[&&NHX:id=15990 \],
Megazostrodon:4.0625 \[&&NHX:id=15032:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\])Cynodontia:32.5 \[&&NHX:id=15030 \], Dimetrodon:4.0625
\[&&NHX:id=14972:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y \])Sphenacodontoidea:73.125
\[&&NHX:id=14971 \], (((((((((((((Flamingo:106.30859375000043
\[&&NHX:id=89474:tol=Y \], Toucan:106.3085937500002
\[&&NHX:id=93330:tol=Y \]):1.4296874999999905,
Penguin:107.73828125000037 \[&&NHX:id=57223:tol=Y
\])Neoaves:3.5742187499999765 \[&&NHX:id=26305:tol=Y \],
Duck:111.31250000000024 \[&&NHX:id=89298:tol=Y
\])Neognathae:4.289062499999972 \[&&NHX:id=26291 \],
Ostrich:115.60156250000016 \[&&NHX:id=26289:tol=Y
\])Neornithes:4.289062499999972 \[&&NHX:id=15834:tol=Y \],
Ichthyornis:4.386242378048764 \[&&NHX:id=15833:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\])Euornithes_true_birds:12.867187499999915 \[&&NHX:id=15829 \],
Archaeopteryx:2.144531249999986 \[&&NHX:id=15824:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\])Aves:12.867187499999915 \[&&NHX:id=15721:tol=Y \],
Tyrannosaurus_Rex:79.47061157226744
\[&&NHX:id=15889:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y \]):74.99999999999773
\[&&NHX:id=15713 \], Diplodocus:157.62263488769486
\[&&NHX:id=15756:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y \])Saurischia:9.374999999999716
\[&&NHX:id=15724 \], Iguanadon:165.44959259033112
\[&&NHX:id=15740:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y \])Dinosauria:20.400000000000002
\[&&NHX:id=14883:tol=Y \], Crocodile:250.39999999999782 \[&&NHX:id=14868
\])Archosauria:22.950000000000003 \[&&NHX:id=14900:tol=Y \],
Snake:273.34999999999803 \[&&NHX:id=17563 \])Sauria:12.75
\[&&NHX:id=14913 \], Brouffia:1.275
\[&&NHX:id=14865:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y \]):5.1 \[&&NHX:id=14864 \],
Tortoise:291.1999999999979 \[&&NHX:id=17631 \])Reptilia:2.55
\[&&NHX:id=14846 \])Amniota:56.25000000000091 \[&&NHX:id=14990:tol=Y \],
(Amphibians:317.3333333333312 \[&&NHX:id=14940 \],
Newt:317.3333333333311 \[&&NHX:id=82771
\])Living_amphibians:32.66666666666758 \[&&NHX:id=14997:tol=Y
\])Tetrapoda:9.00000000000009 \[&&NHX:id=14987 \],
Seymouriamorpha:14.610465116279109 \[&&NHX:id=17554:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\]):40.87500000000041 \[&&NHX:id=14985 \],
(Acanthostega:1.8750000000000189
\[&&NHX:id=15016:tol=Y:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y \],
Icthyostega:1.8750000000000189
\[&&NHX:id=15015:tol=Y:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\]):0.7500000000000075):13.125000000000131 \[&&NHX:id=14976 \],
Panderichthys:2.2500000000000226 \[&&NHX:id=14951:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\]):4.500000000000045 \[&&NHX:id=14950 \],
Eusthenopteron:2.2500000000000226 \[&&NHX:id=14949:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\]):9.00000000000009 \[&&NHX:id=14948 \],
((Paddle_fish:363.6363636363626 \[&&NHX:id=68750 \],
Sturgeon:363.6363636363626 \[&&NHX:id=68749
\])Acipenseriformes:24.242424242424242 \[&&NHX:id=68726:tol=Y \],
Clown_fish:387.8787878787866 \[&&NHX:id=52149 \]):38.621212121213034
\[&&NHX:id=68709 \])Osteichthyes:9.00000000000009 \[&&NHX:id=14921 \],
Shark:435.5 \[&&NHX:id=14925 \])Node_1:13.944444444444489
\[&&NHX:id=14919 \], Cephalaspidida:19.261904761904795
\[&&NHX:id=16894:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y \])Node_3:28.333333333333336
\[&&NHX:id=14840 \], Pteraspis:46.45061728395067
\[&&NHX:id=16929:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y \])Node_1:9.444444444444445
\[&&NHX:id=14833 \], Lamprey:487.22222222222223 \[&&NHX:id=15919
\])Vertebrata:18.88888888888889 \[&&NHX:id=14829:tol=Y \],
Pikaia:506.1111111111113 \[&&NHX:id=14824 \]):158.00000000000003
\[&&NHX:id=14822 \], ((((((((Fruit_fly:339.4285714285717
\[&&NHX:id=10610 \], Peacock_butterfly:339.42857142857144
\[&&NHX:id=94054 \]):7.071428571428555 \[&&NHX:id=8224 \],
Wasp:346.5000000000002 \[&&NHX:id=11244 \]):28.28571428571422
\[&&NHX:id=8223 \], Cockroach:374.7857142857142 \[&&NHX:id=8544
\])Neoptera:7.071428571428555 \[&&NHX:id=8267:tol=Y \],
Giant_dragonfly:10.607142857142833 \[&&NHX:id=13265:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\])Pterygota:98.80952380952378 \[&&NHX:id=8210:tol=Y \],
Brine_shrimp:480.6666666666665 \[&&NHX:id=6387 \]):43.81073446327684
\[&&NHX:id=2527 \], ((((Harevest_mite:496.40677966101725 \[&&NHX:id=2612
\], Spider:496.4067796610171 \[&&NHX:id=2788:tol=Y \]):8.864406779661008
\[&&NHX:id=2542 \], Harvestman:505.27118644067804 \[&&NHX:id=2556
\])Arachnida:8.864406779661008 \[&&NHX:id=2536:tol=Y \],
Sea_Scorpion:39.88983050847454 \[&&NHX:id=8174:nsz=2:ncol=red:ext=Y
\])Chelicerata:7.387005649717507 \[&&NHX:id=2535 \],
Millipede:521.5225988700563 \[&&NHX:id=52849
\]):2.954802259887003)Arthropoda:40.855932203389834
\[&&NHX:id=2469:tol=Y \], (Opabinia:555.9111111111108 \[&&NHX:id=20357
\], Velvet_worm:555.9111111111108 \[&&NHX:id=20356
\])Onychophora:9.422222222222217 \[&&NHX:id=2470:tol=Y
\]):70.55555555555556 \[&&NHX:id=2468 \], Acoel:635.8888888888889
\[&&NHX:id=20383 \]):28.222222222222225)Bilateria:85.88888888888889
\[&&NHX:id=2459:tol=Y \], Sponge:750.0 \[&&NHX:id=20438
\])Animals:2250.0 \[&&NHX:id=2374:tol=Y \], E.\_coli:3000.0
\[&&NHX:id=2306 \])Life_on_earth;
:::

  
  
It\'s great to see creative people tackling the challenge of displaying
the tree of life. I just not convinced that this is the best way to do
it.


Last night BBC One aired David Attenborough's Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life, which featured a lovely "fly through" the tree of life:  In conjunction with the TV show, the Wellcome Trust has launched the Interactive Tree of Life, a Flash-based view of the tree of life. There's also a blog about the project. Here's a demo of the tree:  The tree looks very nice, and a lot of work has gone into it, but I am somewhat underwhelmed.

Thoughts on the Wellcome Interactive Tree of Life

Am Freitag haben der BBC Trust und die britische Medienaufsichtsbehörde
Ofcom einen Antrag der BBC zur Genehmigung neuer Mittel für den Ausbau
lokal ausgerichteter Online-Informationsangebote abgelehnt, berichtet
die New York Times.

[]{#more-698}

Die öffentlich-rechtlichen Sendeanstalten scheinen nicht nur in
Deutschland einen starken Expansionsdrang in digitale Gefilde zu
verspüren. Die britische BBC, deren Jahresetat bei rund 3,6 Milliarden
Euro liegt, wollte rund 80 Millionen Euro in den Ausbau von lokal
ausgerichteten Informationsangeboten im Internet investieren. Damit
sollten 400 neue Stellen für Online-Reporter geschaffen werden, die
dutzende lokaler BBC-Websites mit Video-Nachrichten und -Berichten
versorgen sollten.

Die zuständigen Aufsichtsbehörden, der im vergangenen Jahr neu
geschaffene BBC Trust und die britische Medienaufsichtsbehörde Ofcom
waren von dieser Vorstellung aber nicht zu überzeugen. Sie lehnten die
Budgetwünsche der BBC am vergangenen Freitag laut einem Bericht in der
New York Times ab.

Die privaten Konkurrenten wird die Schlappe der BBC freuen. Sie hatten
sich in der Vergangenheit immer wieder über die unfairen
Wettbewerbsbedingungen beklagt, denen sie sich angesichts des
Milliardenetats der BBC ausgesetzt sehen.

Ross Biggam, Brüsseler Lobbyist für kommerzielle Sender,
[kommentierte](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/technology/internet/22bbc.html?ref=technology){target="_blank"}
die Entscheidung gegenüber der New York Times erfreut: "Insoweit
kommerzielle Sender, aber auch Verleger und andere Medieneigentümer nach
größerer Gewissheit Ausschau gehalten haben, dass diese Art der Aufsicht
funktionieren kann, darf das als ein sehr positiver Schritt gelten."

Die Entscheidung des BBC Trusts und des Ofcom dürfte europaweit
Beachtung finden. In praktisch allen EU-Staaten mit großen,
öffentlich-rechtlichen Sendeanstalten finden ähnliche
Auseinandersetzungen um die Eroberung des Internets mit Online-Angeboten
statt. Im Zentrum der Auseinandersetzungen steht der Verteilungskampf um
die Einnahmen aus dem lukrativen Online-Werbegeschäft. Die EU-Kommission
beobachtet die Entwicklungen kritisch und ist bereit, gegen eine zu
offensichtliche Bevorzugung öffentlich-rechtlicher Sendeanstalten
vorzugehen.

Die Öffentlich-Rechtlichen, die mit ihren Fernseh- und Rundfunkangeboten
gerade in den jüngeren Zielgruppen immer weniger Zuspruch finden,
erhoffen sich von einem aggressiven Ausbau ihrer Online-Angebote, wieder
mehr Kontakt zu den Internet-affinen Generationen zu finden -- und
diesen via Werbung in bare Münze umzusetzen. Dafür wollen sie mehr
Mittel aus den Rundfunk- und Fernsehgebühren einsetzen und zum Teil
sogar die Gebühren erhöhen. Verständlicherweise ist die private
Konkurrenz, die ihre Investitionen aus Werbeeinnahmen refinanzieren
muss, strikt dagegen.

In Deutschland ist dieser Streit in den vergangenen Wochen in den
Auseinandersetzungen um die Neufassung des Rundfunkstaatsvertrages
kulminiert. ARD und ZDF wollen mit einem Teil der Einnahmen aus den
GEZ-Gebühren ihre Internetangebote ausbauen. Der 12.
Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag soll die entsprechenden Rahmenbedingungen
dafür festlegen. Die privaten Medienunternehmen befürchten
Millionenverluste bei den Werbeeinnahmen, wenn ARD und ZDF in Zukunft im
Internet ein umfangreiches Angebot an digitalen Spartenkanälen
offerieren. Das
[sei](http://vprt.de/index.html/de/press/article/id/170/or/2/){target="_blank"},
so Tobias Schmid, Vizepräsident des Verbandes Privater Rundfunk und
Telemedien (VPRT), ein "Frontalangriff auf die Kernbereiche des
kommerziellen Fernsehens bei gleichzeitiger Preisgabe der eigentlichen
öffentlichen Aufgaben".

Die privaten Anbieter fordern, dass alle Expansionspläne der
Öffentlich-Rechtlichen in Zukunft einem so genannten Drei-Stufen-Test
unterzogen werden sollten, um Wettbewerbsverhinderungen mit Hilfe
öffentlicher Subventionen auszuschließen. Die Öffentlich-Rechtlichen
hingegen sehen ihre Pläne durch ihren Informationsauftrag gedeckt.

The post [Vorerst kein Ausbau der digitalen Lokalangebote bei der
BBC](https://irights.info/2008/11/24/vorerst-kein-ausbau-der-digitalen-lokalangebote-bei-der-bbc/698){rel="nofollow"}
appeared first on [iRights.info](https://irights.info){rel="nofollow"}.


Am Freitag haben der BBC Trust und die britische Medienaufsichtsbehörde Ofcom einen Antrag der BBC zur Genehmigung neuer Mittel für den Ausbau lokal ausgerichteter Online-Informationsangebote abgelehnt, berichtet die New York Times. Die öffentlich-rechtlichen Sendeanstalten scheinen nicht nur in Deutschland einen starken Expansionsdrang in digitale Gefilde zu verspüren.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Time for some decent service

EOL, the BBC, and Wikipedia

Norwegisches Fernsehen setzt auf eigenen Bittorrent-Tracker

Thoughts on the Wellcome Interactive Tree of Life

Vorerst kein Ausbau der digitalen Lokalangebote bei der BBC