University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

Following on from my earlier post [Linking taxonomic names to
literature: beyond digitised 5×3 index
cards](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/10/linking-taxonomic-names-to-literature.html)
I\'ve been slowly updating my latest toy: 
 
<http://iphylo.org/~rpage/itaxon>[![Alpheus](http://lh4.ggpht.com/-Vr3nyvG0OAM/TtTuGW8S35I/AAAAAAAABEQ/b_FseR8gArU/alpheus.png?imgmax=800 "alpheus.png"){style="display:block; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"
border="0" width="400"
height="318"}](http://iphylo.org/~rpage/itaxon/?search=Alpheus+wickstenae) 
 
This site displays a database mapping over 200,000 animal names to the
primary literature, using a mix of identifiers (DOIs, Handles, PubMed,
URLs) as well as links to freely available PDFs where they are
available. Lots still to do as about a third of the 1.5 million names in
the database have citations that my code hasn\'t been able to parse.
There are also lots of gaps that need to be filled in, for example
missing DOIs or PubMed identifiers, and a lot of the earlier names are
linked by \"microcitations\" to names, and I\'ll need to handle those
(using code from my earlier project [Nomenclator Zoologicus meets
Biodiversity Heritage Library: linking names directly to
literature](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/03/nomenclator-zoologicus-meets.html)). 
 
The mapping itself is stored in a database that I\'m constantly editing,
so this is far from production quality, but I\'ve found it eye-opening
just how much literature is available. There is a lot of scope for
generating customised lists of papers, for example, primary taxonomic
sources for taxa currently on the [IUCN Red
List](http://www.iucnredlist.org/), or those taxa which have sequences
in GenBank (building on the mapping of [NCBI taxa onto
Wikipedia](http://iphylo.org/linkout)). Given that a lot of the relevant
literature is in BHL, or available as PDFs, we could do some data
mining, such as extracting geographical coordinates, taxonomic names,
and citations. And if linked data is your thing, the 110,000 DOIs and
nearly 9,000 CiNiii URLs all serve RDF (albeit not without a [few
problems](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/09/linked-data-that-isn-failings-of-rdf.html)). 
 
I\'ve set a \"goal\" of having 250,000 names mapped to the primary
literature, at which point the database interface will get some
much-needed attention, but for now have a look for your favourite animal
and see if it\'s original description has been digitised.

Following on from my earlier post Linking taxonomic names to literature: beyond digitised 5×3 index cards I've been slowly updating my latest toy:http://iphylo.org/~rpage/itaxonThis site displays a database mapping over 200,000 animal names to the primary literature, using a mix of identifiers (DOIs, Handles, PubMed, URLs) as well as links to freely available PDFs where they are available.

Mapping names to literature: closing in on 250,000 names

> The problem with this \... is that my personal and unfashionable
> observation is that "distributed" begets "centralized." For every
> distributed service created, we've then had to create a centralized
> service to make it useable again (ICANN, Google, Pirate Bay, CrossRef,
> DOAJ, ticTocs, WorldCat, etc.).  
> \--Geoffrey Bilder [interviewed by Martin
> Fenner](http://network.nature.com/people/mfenner/blog/2009/02/17/interview-with-geoffrey-bilder)

  
Thinking about the GUID mess in biodiversity informatics, stumbling
across some documents about the [PILIN](https://www.pilin.net.au/)
(Persistent Identifier Linking INfrastructure) project, and still
smarting from problems getting hold of specimen data, I thought I\'d try
and articulate one solution.  
  
Firstly, I think biodiversity informatics has made the same mistake as
digital librarians in thinking that people care where the get
information from. We don\'t, in the sense that I don\'t care whether I
get the information from Google or my local library, I just want the
information. In this context local is irrelevant. Nor do I care about
individual collections. I care about particular taxa, or particular
areas, but not collections (likewise, I may care about philosophy, but
not philosophy books at Glasgow University Library). I think the concern
for local has lead to an emphasis on providing complex software to each
data provider that supports operations (such as search) that don\'t
scale (live federated search simply doesn\'t work), at the expense of
focussing on simple solutions that are easy to use.  
  
In a (no doubt unsuccessful) attempt to think beyond what I want, let\'s
imagine we have several people/organisations with interests in this
area. For example:  
  
Imagine I am an **occasional user**. I see a specimen referred to, say a
holotype, I want to learn more about that specimen. Is there some
identifier I can use to find out more. I\'m used to using DOIs to
retrieve papers, what about specimens. So, I want:

1.  identifiers for specimens so I can retrieve more information

  
Imagine I am a **publisher** (which can be anything from a major
commercial publisher to a blogger). I want to make my content more
useful to my readers, and I\'ve noticed that other\'s are doing this so
I better get onboard. But I don\'t want to clutter my content with
fragile links \-- and if a link breaks I want it fixed, or I want a
cached copy (hence the use of [WebCite](http://www.webcitation.org/) by
some publishers). If I want a link fixed I don\'t want to have to chase
up individual providers, I want one place to go (as I do for references
if a DOI breaks). So, I want:

1.  stable links with some guarantee of persistence
2.  somebody who will take responsibility to fix the broken ones

  
Imagine I am a **data provider**. I want to make my data available, but
I want something **simple** to put in place (I have better things to do
with my time, and my IT department keep a tight grip on the servers). I
would also like to be able to show my masters that this is a good thing
to do, for example by being able to present statistics on how many times
my data has been accessed. I\'d like identifiers that are meaningful to
me (maybe carry some local \"branding\"). I might not be so keen on some
central agency serving all my data as if it was theirs. So, I want

1.  simplicity
2.  option to serve my own data with my own identifiers

  
Imagine I am an **power user**. I want lots of data, maybe grouped in
ways that the data providers hadn\'t anticipated. I\'m in a hurry, so I
want to get this stuff quickly. So I want:

1.  convenient, fast APIs to fetch data
2.  flexible search interfaces would be nice, but I may just download it
    myself because it\'s probably quicker if I do it myself

  
Imagine I am an **aggregator**. I want data providers to have a simple
harvesting interface so that I can grab the data. I don\'t need a search
interface to their data because I can do it much faster if I have the
data locally (federated search sucks). So I want:

1.  the ability to harvest all the data (\"all your data are belong to
    me\")
2.  a simple way to update my copy of provider\'s data when it changes

  
  
It\'s too late in the evening for me to do this justice, but I think a
reasonable solution is this:  

1.  Individual data providers serve their data via URLs, ideally serving
    a combination of HTML and RDF (i.e., linked data)~~, but XML would
    be OK~~
2.  Each record (e.g., specimen) has an identifier that is locally
    unique, and the identifier is resolvable (for example, by simply
    appending it to a URL)
3.  Each data provider is encouraged to reuse existing GUIDs wherever
    possible, (e.g., for literature (DOIs) and taxonomic names) to make
    their data
    [\"meshable\"](http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/?date=2007-03-22)
4.  Data provider can be harvested, either completey, or for records
    modified after a given date
5.  A central aggregator (e.g., GBIF) aggregates all
    specimen/observation data. It uses Handles (or DOIs) to create
    GUIDs, comprising a naming authority (one for each data provider),
    and an identifier (supplied by the data provider, may carry
    branding, e.g. \"antweb:casent0100367\"), so an example would be
    \"hdl:1234567/antweb:casent0100367\" or
    \"doi:10.1234/antweb:casent0100367\". Note that this avoids labeling
    these GUIDs as, say, http://gbif.org/1234567/antweb:casent0100367
6.  Handles resolve to data provider URL, but cached aggregator copy of
    metadata may be used if data provide is offline
7.  Publishers use \"hdl:1234567/antweb:casent0100367\" (i.e., authors
    use this when writing manuscripts), as they can harass central
    aggregator if they break
8.  Central aggregator is reponsible for generating reports to providers
    of how there data has been used, e.g. how many times \"cited\" in
    literaure

  
So, GBIF (for whoever steps up to the plate) would use handles (or
DOIs). This gives them the tools to manage the identifiers, plus tells
the world that we are serious about this. Publishers can trust that the
links to millions of specimen records won\'t disappear. Providers don\'t
have complex software to install, removing one barrier to making more
data available.  
  
I think it\'s time we made a serious effort to address these issues.


Thinking about the GUID mess in biodiversity informatics, stumbling across some documents about the PILIN  (Persistent Identifier Linking INfrastructure) project, and still smarting from problems getting hold of specimen data, I thought I'd try and articulate one solution.Firstly, I think biodiversity informatics has made the same mistake as digital librarians in thinking that people care where the get information from.

GBIF and Handles: admitting that "distributed" begets "centralized"

[![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisdfg4DCjA59WeKxjUVYq_EaeTcTceIHZtykUW75l79yPl3g858qBkrkyCdKZntJYpZshZTULweHegcjGtxnl_1XH8mlgs3Ix5p9E3_w29Ey7O6WfwwWS19oWcRsBcC9qFbAZW/s200/script.png){#BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5221349306663942690
style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;"
border="0"}](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisdfg4DCjA59WeKxjUVYq_EaeTcTceIHZtykUW75l79yPl3g858qBkrkyCdKZntJYpZshZTULweHegcjGtxnl_1XH8mlgs3Ix5p9E3_w29Ey7O6WfwwWS19oWcRsBcC9qFbAZW/s1600-h/script.png){onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"} 
Brian de Alwis has written a cool Apple Script called
[OpenDOI](http://www.cs.usask.ca/~bsd178/OpenDOI/) that adds support for
resolving doi: and hdl: URLs using Safari on a Mac. With it installed,
links such as [hdl:10101/npre.2008.1760.1](hdl:10101/npre.2008.1760.1)
and <doi:10.1093/bib/bbn022> become clickable, without having to stick a
HTTP proxy in front of them. 
 
Seems that an obvious extension to this would be to add support for
LSIDs. Firefox can support LSIDs through the [LSID Browser for
Firefox](http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=198923),
but this won\'t work with Safari. Something for the to do list.

Brian de Alwis has written a cool Apple Script called OpenDOI that adds support for resolving doi: and hdl: URLs using Safari on a Mac. With it installed, links such as hdl:10101/npre.2008.1760.1 and doi:10.1093/bib/bbn022 become clickable, without having to stick a HTTP proxy in front of them. Seems that an obvious extension to this would be to add support for LSIDs.

OpenDOI

> Hate my tribe. Hate them for even asking why nobody uses library
> standards in the larger world, when "brain-dead inflexibility in
> practice" is one obvious and compelling reason, and
> "incomprehensibility" is another.  
>   
> \... \$DEITY have mercy, OpenURL is a stupid spec. Great idea, and
> useful in spite of itself. But astoundingly stupid. Ranganathan
> preserve us from librarians writing specs! - [Caveat
> Lector](http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/archives/2006/10/13/i-hate-library-standards/)

  
[![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-NYVJHFvxo6lCTUP_pCYfftXVJax3-Mrzm_vodUkbXmsSwnOkogL46Tnmrg4O7fePDX_TpNpfEIxCSJWRuYYdnlpOrN5KpJXXvav_W4c61wkOMNF384ozw2j0FEW9aA0WP9s5/s320/blueBox.gif){#BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070336099380681730
style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;"
border="0"}](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-NYVJHFvxo6lCTUP_pCYfftXVJax3-Mrzm_vodUkbXmsSwnOkogL46Tnmrg4O7fePDX_TpNpfEIxCSJWRuYYdnlpOrN5KpJXXvav_W4c61wkOMNF384ozw2j0FEW9aA0WP9s5/s1600-h/blueBox.gif){onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"}  
OK, we\'re on a roll. After adding [*Journal of
Arachnology*](http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2007/05/openurl-and-spiders.html)
and
[*Pysche*](http://bioguid.blogspot.com/2007/05/openurl-resolver-for-psyche.html)
to my OpenURL resolver, I\'ve no added the American Museum of Natural
History\'s *Bulletins* and *Novitates*.  
  
In an act of great generosity, the AMNH has placed its publications on a
freely accessible [DSpace
server](http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/). This is a wonderful
resource provided by one of the world\'s premier natural history museums
(and one others should follow), and is especially valuable given that
volumes of the *Bulletins* and *Novitates* post 1999 are also hosted by
BioOne (and hence have DOIs), but these versions of the publications are
not free.  
  
As blogged earlier on
[SemAnt](http://semant.blogspot.com/2007/02/harvesting-handles.html),
getting metadata from DSpace in a actually usable form is a real pain. I
ended up writing a script to pull everything off via the OAI interface,
extract metadata from the resulting XML, do a DOI look-up for post 1999
material, then dump this into the MySQL server so my OpenURL service can
find it.  
  
[![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpvO32MXTNZV11oKJNzgx5xoKUQEXt8nnNGdlZ6ij-93NSwHBmvoY61FW5GAE6oeVIvCrhmEM59g8TCCgyZyoAb_5F5BcA9rYUAd339dRhEa5GV3PiXtPjzVbh7ttJMjGEA0M7/s320/logo_lg.gif){#BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070336245409569810
style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;"
border="0"}](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpvO32MXTNZV11oKJNzgx5xoKUQEXt8nnNGdlZ6ij-93NSwHBmvoY61FW5GAE6oeVIvCrhmEM59g8TCCgyZyoAb_5F5BcA9rYUAd339dRhEa5GV3PiXtPjzVbh7ttJMjGEA0M7/s1600-h/logo_lg.gif){onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"}  
Apart from the tedium of having to find the OAI interface (why oh why do
people make this harder than it needs to be?), the metadata served up by
the AMNH is, um, a little ropey. They use [Dublin
Core](http://dublincore.org/), which is great, but the AMNH makes a hash
of using it. Dublin Core provides quite a rich set of terms for
describing a reference, and [guidelines on how to use
it](http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-citation-guidelines/). The AMNH
uses the same tag for different things. Take **date**, for example:  

    2005-10-05T22:02:08Z
    2005-10-05T22:02:08Z
    1946

  
Now, one of these dates is the date of publication, the others are dates
the metadata was uploaded (or so I suspect). So, **why not use the
appropriate terms?** Like, for instance, . Why do I have to parse three
fields, and intuit that the third one is the date of publication.
Likewise, why have up to three

fields, and why include an abbreviated citation in the title? And why
for the love of God, format that citation differently for different
articles!? Why have multiple fields, one of which is the abstract (and
for which is available?). It\'s just a mess, and it\'s very annoying (as
you can probably tell). I can see some [hate library
standards](http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/archives/2006/10/13/i-hate-library-standards/).  
  
Anyway, after much use of Perl regular expressions, and some last minute
finessing with Excel, I think we now have the AMNH journals available
through OpenURL.  
  
For a demo, go to David Shorthouse\'s list of references for spiders,
say the [letter
P](http://canadianarachnology.dyndns.org/data/canada_spiders/AllReferences.asp?Letter=P)
and click on the bioGUID symbol by a paper by Norm Platnick in the
*American Museum novitates*.


OK, we're on a roll. After adding

 Journal of Arachnology

and

 Pysche

to my OpenURL resolver, I've no added the American Museum of Natural History's

 Bulletins

and

 Novitates

. In an act of great generosity, the AMNH has placed its publications on a freely accessible DSpace server.

AMNH, DSpace, and OpenURL

[![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEippjrDnOFur6xx-k8l7N4N6VU0A0WgipzXsCwjSKranaLruDYwpD1C9bN7LAgpbwHDfo7KndicK8RLnPnKX1ZE545mM96FC7qR594-WexKSeo7FFsbL8DGWFvVxfQ5OnugmbOZ/s320/2007_checklist_cd_front_cover.jpg){#BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5061841674705199410
style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;"
border="0"}](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEippjrDnOFur6xx-k8l7N4N6VU0A0WgipzXsCwjSKranaLruDYwpD1C9bN7LAgpbwHDfo7KndicK8RLnPnKX1ZE545mM96FC7qR594-WexKSeo7FFsbL8DGWFvVxfQ5OnugmbOZ/s1600-h/2007_checklist_cd_front_cover.jpg)  
Playing with the recently released \"Catalogue of Life\" CD, and
pondering Charles Hussey\'s recent post to TAXACOM about the \"European
Virtual Library of Taxonomic Literature (E-ViTL)\" (part of
[EDIT](http://www.e-taxonomy.eu)) has got me thinking more and more
about how primitive our handling of taxonomic literature is, and how it
cripples the utility of taxonomic databases such as the Catalogue of
Life. For example, none of the literature listed in the Catalogue of
Life is associated with any digital identifier (such as a DOI, Handle,
SICI, or even a URL). In the digital age, this renders the literature
section nearly useless \-- a user has to search for the reference in
Google. Surely we want identifiers, not (often poorly formed)
bibliographic citations? For example, I think
[hdl:2246/4613](http://hdl.handle.net/2246/4613) is more useful than  

> Schmidt, K. P. 1921. New species of North American lizards of the
> genera Holbrookia and Uta. American Museum Novitates (22)

  
Given the Handle [hdl:2246/4613](http://hdl.handle.net/2246/4613), we
get straight to the bibliographic resource, **and** in this case, a PDF
of the paper. In the digital age this is what we need.  
  
So, how to get there? Well, I think we need to focus on developing
services to associate references with identifiers. Imagine a service
that takes a bibliographic record and returns a globally unique
identifier for that reference. This, of course, is part of what CrossRef
provides through its [OpenURL
resolver](http:///www.crossref.org/openurl).  
  
OpenURL has been around a while, and despite the fact that it is
probably over complicated (see [I hate library
standards](http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/archives/2006/10/13/i-hate-library-standards/)
for more on the seeming desire of librarians to make things harder than
they need to be), I think it is a useful way to think about the task of
linking taxonomic names to literature, especially if we keep things
simple (see [Rethinking
OpenURL](http://onebiglibrary.net/story/rethinking-openurl)). In
particular, drop the obsession with local context \-- I don\'t care what
my local library has, my library is the cloud.  
  
So, what if we had an OpenURL service that took a bibliographic citation
and queried local and remote sources for a digital identifier, such as a
DOI or a Handle, for that citation? If there is no such identifier, then
the next step is to create one. For example, the service could create a
SICI (see [my del.icio.us bookmarks for
sici](http://del.icio.us/rdmpage/sici)) for that item. Ideally, for
those items that were digitised, we could have a database that
associated SICIs with the resource location. For example, most of the
journal *[Psyche](http://psyche.entclub.org/)* is available free online
as PDFs, and has XML files for each volume providing full bibliographic
details (including URLs). It would be trivial to harvest these and add
this information to an OpenURL service.  
  
These ideas need a little more fleshing out, but I think it\'s time the
taxonomic community started thinking seriously about digital identifiers
for literature, and how they would be used.
[CrossRef](http://www.crossref.org) is a great example of what can be
done with some simple services (Handles + OpenURL), and it\'s a tragedy
that every time DOIs come up people get blinded by cost, and don\'t
spend time trying to understand how CrossRef works. If nyou want a good
demonstration of what can be done with CrossRef, just look at
[Connotea](http://www.connotea.org), which builds much of its
functionality on top of CrossRef web services.  
  
It is also interesting that CrossRef is much simpler to use than
repositories such as DSpace (used by the AMNH\'s digital library) \--
each DSpace installation has it\'s own hooks to retrieve metadata (in
some cases, such as the AMNH, appallingly badly formed), and as a result
there is no easy way to discover what metadata is associated with a
given handle, nor given a citation whether a handle exists for that
citation.  
  
So, when projects such as EDIT start talking about taxonomic libraries,
I think they need to think in terms of simple web services that will
serve as the building blocks for other tools. An OpenURL service would
be a major boon, and would speed us towards the day when databases such
as the Catalogue of Life would not contain (often inconsistently formed)
text records of bibliographic works, but actionable identifiers. Any
thing less and we remain in the dark ages.


Playing with the recently released "Catalogue of Life" CD, and pondering Charles Hussey's recent post to TAXACOM about the "European Virtual Library of Taxonomic Literature (E-ViTL)" (part of EDIT) has got me thinking more and more about how primitive our handling of taxonomic literature is, and how it cripples the utility of taxonomic databases such as the Catalogue of Life.

Postagens de Rogue Scholar

Mapping names to literature: closing in on 250,000 names

GBIF and Handles: admitting that "distributed" begets "centralized"

OpenDOI

AMNH, DSpace, and OpenURL

Catalogue of Life, OpenURL, and taxonomic literature