I'm in the midst of rebuilding iSpecies (my mash-up of Wikipedia, NCBI, GBIF, Yahoo, and Google search results) with the aim of outputting the results in RDF. The goal is to convert iSpecies from a pretty crude "on-the-fly" mash-up to a triple store where results are cached and can be queried in interesting ways. Why?

At the end of day two of the GBIF LSID-GUID Task Group I put together this crude diagram to summarise some of the possible links between biodiversity data and the larger linked data cloud, which I, among others, have argued is where biodiversity informatics should be heading.

OK, really must stop avoiding what I'm supposed to be doing (writing a paper, already missed the deadline), but continuing the theme of LSIDs and short URLs, it occurs to me that LSIDs can be seen as a disaster (don't work in webrowsers, nobody else uses them, hard to implement, etc.) or an opportunity.

The latest post on the EOL blog (Biodiversity in a rapidly changing world) really, really annoys me. It claims that Nope, I suggest it demonstrates just how limited EOL is. If I view the page for the red lionfish I get an out of date map from GBIF that shows a very limited distribution, and doesn't show the introductions in Florida and the Bahamas (I have to wade through text to find reference to the Florida introduction, and the page doesn't

D. Ross Robertson has published a paper entitled "Global biogeographical data bases on marine fishes: caveat emptor" (doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00519.x - DOI is broken, you can get the article here). The paper concludes: As I've noted elsewhere on this blog, and as demonstrated by Yesson et al.'s paper on legume records in GBIF (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001124) (not cited by Robertson), there are major problems with geographical information

As spotted by dechronization, GBIF has made public that Vince Smith has won the 2008 Ebbe Nielsen Prize.

Resurrecting iSpecies after moving it to a new folder{"=““} on one of my servers, and browsing popular searches, I keep coming across clearly erroneous distributions. FishBase seems a major culprit. For example, the common pandora Pagellus erythrinus is a marine fish, yet GBIF displays numerous occurrences in mainland Africa (dots with black centre on map below). What gives?

The more I play with GBIF the more I come across some spectacular errors. Here's one small example of what can go wrong, and how easy it would be to fix at least some of the errors in GBIF. This is topical given that the recent review of EOL highlighted the importance of vetting and cleaning data.

Interesting paper in PLoS ONE (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001124) on the quality of data housed in GBIF. The study looked at 630,871 georeferenced legume records in GBIF, and concluded that 84% of these records are valid.

Here is a live demo of Pygmybrowse using the Catalogue of Life classification of animals provided by GBIF. It's embedded in this post in an tag, so you can play with it. Just click on a node. Taxa in bold have ten or more children, the numbers of children are displayed in parentheses "()". Each subtree is fetched on the fly from GBIF.