I'm continuing to play with the new version of iSpecies, seeing just how far one can get by simply grabbing JSON from various sources and mashing them up. Since the Open Tree of Life is pretty unresolved ("OMG it's full of stars") I've started to grab trees from TreeBASE and add those.
In a recent Twitter conversation including David Shorthous and myself (and other poor souls who got dragged in) we discussed how to demonstrate that adopting JSON-LD as a simple linked-data friendly format might help bootstrap the long awaited "biodiversity knowledge graph" (see below for some suggestions for keeping JSON-LD simple). David suggests partnering with "Three small, early adopting projects". I disagree.
A decade ago (OMG, that can't be right, an actual decade ago) I created "iSpecies", a simple little tool to mashup a variety of data from GBIF, NCBI, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and Google Scholar to create a search engine for species.
My paper "Surfacing the deep data of taxonomy" (based on a presentation I gave in 2011) has appeared in print as part to a special issue of Zookeys : The manuscript was written shortly after the talk, but as is the nature of edited volumes it's taken a while to appear. My tweet about the paper sparked some interesting comments from David Shorthouse.
OK, so the title is pure click bait, but here's the thing. It seems to me that the Semantic Web as classically conceived (RDF/XML, SPARQL, triple stores) has had relatively little impact outside academia, whereas other technologies such as JSON, NoSQL (e.g., MongoDB, CouchDB) and graph databases (e.g., Neo4J) have got a lot of developer mindshare. In biodiversity informatics the Semantic Web has been a round for a while.
It's a nice feeling when work that one did ages ago seems relevant again. Markus Döring has been working on a new backbone classification of all the species which occur in taxonomic checklists harvested by GBIF. After building a new classification the obvious question arises "how does this compare to the previous GBIF classification?" A simple question, answering it however is a little tricky.
For those of you who, like me, weren't at the "Frontiers Of Biodiversity Informatics and Modelling Species Distributions" held at the AMNH in New York, here are the videos of the talks and panel discussion, which the organisers have kindly put up on Vimeo with the following description:
This guest post by Tony Rees explores some of the themes from his recent talk 10 years of Global Biodiversity Databases: Are We There Yet?. 10 years of global biodiversity databases: are we there yet? from Tony Rees A couple of months ago I received an invitation to address the upcoming 2015 meeting of the Malacological Society of Australasia (Australian and New Zealand mollusc persons for the uninitiated) on
Zoë A. Goodwin (@Drypetes) and collegagues have published a paper with a title guaranteed to get noticed: Their paper argues that "more than half of all tropical plant collections may be wrongly named." This is clearly a worrying conclusion with major implications for aggregators such as GBIF that get the bulk of their data (excluding birds) from museums and herbaria.
Inspired in part by the release of the draft tree of life (doi:10.1073/pnas.1423041112 by the Open Tree of Life, I've been revisiting (yet again) ways to visualise very big phylogenies (see Very large phylogeny viewer for my last attempt). My latest experiment uses Google Maps to render a large tree. Google Maps uses "tiles" to create a zoomable interface, so we need to create tiles for different zoom levels for the phylogeny.