TRIN Forum 2009

Jim Croft

Hub Research Information Systems (HubRIS)

Centre for Plant Biodiversity ResearchAustralian National HerbariumAustralian National Botanic Gardens

Framework for Collaborative Taxonomy

Outline

The problem Historical taxonomy What we are trying to achieve A new taxonomy

The TRIN solution TRIN HubRIS The TRIN Wiki Progress so far

Possibilities and dead ends? The ‘blogosphere’

Will it work? Engagement

Expectation of this forum Discussion

THE PROBLEM

The Problem for Taxonomy

Too many species

Too much complexity

Too much subtlety

Too few taxonomists

Too few resources

Too much demand

To little time

Need a different business model

Historical Taxonomy

Some generalizations: A career Individual, solitary Work independent of other projects (vague context) A life’s work Sustained development of knowledge, expertise Objectives, goals self set Few deadlines Flexible overall budget Limited set of end products

Species discovery Revision Flora, Fauna accounts Monograph

What are we trying to achieve?

Greater knowledge

Greater coverage

Greater detail

Greater productivity with the same resources

Greater efficiency (MBA code for less money)

Greater and more diverse audience

Greater responsiveness

Greater relevance

Greater support (Taxonomy code for more money)

A New Taxonomy

Some generalizations: A project, a task Collaboration, teamwork Work linked to other projects (defined context) A phase in a taxonomic career Bring knowledge, expertise to the task Objectives, goals set by stake holders Tight deadlines Fixed overall budget Specific set of end products - traditional products, plus:

On-line data sets – text, images, etc Modular taxon profiles, fact sheets, etc. Interactive keys Interactive maps, spatial models, etc.

TRIN SOLUTION

TRIN HubRIS

Hub Research Information Systems

Team of five: Margaret Cawsey (ANWC) Garry Jolley-Rogers (TRIN) Paul Alexander (TRIN) Paul Harvey (TRIN) Siobhan Duffy (CSIRO PI)

Advice from: Jim Croft (ANH) Greg Whitbread (ANBG) Anyone else who cares to give it

TRIN HubRIS

The role of HubRIS: Collaborate with TRIN participants Collaborate with external taxonomy projects Provide technologies to facilitate communication Implement technologies to assist with taxonomy and

information management Collaborate with the Atlas of Living Australia, etc. Participate in other biodiversity informatics projects in

Australia and internationally Promote biodiversity information standards

To create and leave a sound and robust information management legacy for taxonomy

TRIN HubRIS – General principles

Seek solutions to achieve better outcomes faster Embedded conflict Necessary compromise

Work with taxonomists throughout the project Consult at beginning Continual engagement, feedback

Do it once, store it well, reuse it often Modularization Nomenclatural databases, specimen databases

Evaluate existing technology, applications EDIT Scratchpads; BioLink, Specify, MX, etc.

TRIN HubRIS – General principles

Advocate free and open software solutions Yardstick - ‘Could we give it to PNG?’ Acknowledge some solutions require proprietary products

Try to design the systems around the people not the other way around

Importance of a key technology person or champion in each project

Try to break the 90:9:1 rule Most people look A few edit A very few contribute

TRIN HubRIS – some projects

Taxonomy workflow Analysis Identifying ‘pinch points’ Evaluating technological and other solutions Looking for efficiency, throughput, productivity Provides a framework for information management projects

Remote identification Interactive video technology EVO, etc. Puts client in touch with the expert in real time Faster ID turnaround Potential commercial savings

TRIN HubRIS – some projects

Interactive keys Data standards

TDWG SDD Also TDWG SPM Also TDWG ontologies and vocabularies

Several good products Delta, Lucid, etc. Free but proprietary Different standards / structures Developed under a single user model

Collaborative data management Many claiming the niche No universal working/workable solution yet

If there was we would all be using it Killer app?

TRIN HubRIS – some projects

Taxon profiles As in Floras, Faunas, factsheets Almost universal need

Nearly every TRIN project will generate profiles Non taxonomists generate profiles Feed into the ALA, EoL, other projects Aggregators and ‘mashups’

Grab user defined bits of a profile

Lack of agreed standards Good standards for taxonomy, specimens, but not taxa Universal vs discipline-specific TDWG Standards a start

SPM, SDD, ontologies and vocabularies Need work Could become very complex if we let it

TRIN HubRIS – some projects

Taxon profiles Work needed on content

What is in, what is out General vs detail continuum Freedom vs constraint

Work needed on technical specification Categorization

Work needed on technical implementation Database design issues

Main users are not core TRIN projects External users May not be taxonomists

TRIN HubRIS – some projects

Bibliographic references Track and manages bibliographic references for scientific

papers Distinct from formal nomenclatural references

cf. APNI, AFD, etc.

An emerging common issue across projects Many use different stand-alone proprietary systems Home made systems Full-blown library systems

Is a common, flexible generic solution possible?

THE TRIN WIKI

The TRIN wiki

Primary tool for project documentation & management Insert into taxonomy workflow Principle of public visibility Principle of user contribution

It is your wiki, you build it A continual ‘work in progress’

Restricted editing control for each group Editing control requirement; +/- WYSYWG editor

MediaWiki (as in Wikipedia) unsuitable

TWiki Provision for ‘subwikis’ Provision for internal ‘private’ WikiWebs Optional ‘add-ons’

Some may be suitable for taxonomy projects

The TRIN wiki

Arranged in WikiWebs Linked topic pages within and between webs

Text, images Tables, forms, etc. Attachments (.doc, .xls, .ppt, etc.)

A WikiWeb for each project +/- self contained Content is created and posted by projects Edit access is controlled to registered participants ‘Private’ wikis can be created in each wiki

Preparation of grant proposals Allows confidential work on manuscripts Teasing out outrageously embarrassing ideas Tolerated but not encouraged

The TRIN wiki

Taxa webs Main focus and purpose of the wiki Dealing with specific taxonomic projects A foundation of workbench for taxonomy A repository

Data Results Discussion

Core TRIN projects e.g Vertebrates, Ants, Weeds, Mayflies

Independent taxonomy projects e.g. Mangroves, Rainforests, Bryophytes, Wasps Simple criterion: more than one person working on a taxonomy

project

The TRIN wiki

Project webs Dealing with general taxonomic projects

e.g. Keys, Taxonomic process, Capacity Building, HubRIS

Infrastructure webs Dealing with TRIN management and operations

e.g Management, Knowledge Exchange, Forums, TRIN Web

Meta webs Dealing with the management of the wiki itself

Home, SandBox, TWiki

The TRIN Wiki

Personal topic pages A place to store whatever you like Personal profile Links to personal websites Links to interesting websites Papers Discussions Diary Whatever

PROGRESS SO FAR

Progress so far

Information management infrastructure Servers Network trin.org.au taxonomy.org.au

TRIN website www.trin.org.au

TRIN wiki www.trin.org.au/wiki

TRIN listservers User subscribing email lists

Progress so far – evaluation

Information management infrastructure Evolving, stabilizing (?)

TRIN web +/- complete +/- static ‘project brochures

TRIN wiki Fragmentary +/- dynamic (in places) Project descriptions Developing content

TRIN listservers Hardly used

Progress so far

What else do you want? Social networking applications? Internet chat? Blogs? Special communications tools? Special data repositories? Access to special data? Special data management applications? Special data discovery applications? Special visualization tools?

Talk to the HubRIS team Capacity is limited Suitable applications may already exist Almost suitable applications may be modified

POSSIBILITIES AND DEAD ENDS

Possibilities and dead ends

Range of Web 2.0 social networking products Interactive web sites Wikis Blogs? Others?

Blogosphere worth evaluating? Flickr, YouTube Myspace FaceBook Twitter LinkedIn Blogspot, Wordpress, etc.

Possibilities and dead ends

Blogosphere use case

Tim Entwisle, Director RBG Sydney Twitter

When he sees something botanically interesting One sentence

FaceBook An elaborating paragraph, maybe an image

Blogspsot (TalkingPlants) More polished, 2-3 paragraphs, one or more images

RBG website Refined corporate version from above

Radio spot, presentations and press releases Material extracted from above

Possibilities and dead ends

Blogosphere use case

LinkeIn – www.linkedin.com FaceBook for professionals

Previously domain of self-promoting managers, contractors Increasing number of biologists, conservationists and

biodiversity informaticians

Self maintaining contact list Ego drives people to maintain their own profiles and contacts Links to websites, blogs, etc.

Friend of a Friend principle c. 50 primary contacts reveals c. 1000 secondary contacts

Good search facilities Name, profession, discipline, region, country, city

Subscribable subject groups

WILL IT ALL WORK?

Will it all work?

The BIG question

Depends on engagement: Researcher engagement Management engagement User engagement Political engagement

Depends on content Coverage

taxonomic; geographic; temporal

Depth detail, media

Relevance target audience

Will it all work?

Depends on technology Effective Accessible Universal Robust, reliable Affordable Appropriate, understandable Openness (can it be modified, enhanced) Compatible Standards

DURING THIS FORUM

During this forum

Focus on making it all work

End products are interesting but not informative New taxa, new phylogenies, new classifications New databases, new applications New interactive keys, new fact sheets We can brag about these elsewhere

Focus on how we do what we do Strategies for improving throughput, productivity Identifying bottlenecks amenable to technological solutions Inventions to make life easier

During this forum

What are the impediments to using this technology? Innate conservatism of the discipline? Aged taxonomists, old dogs new tricks? Impatient taxonomists? Too complicated? Ineffective? Makes the process longer? Creates more problems than it solves?

Are the impediments real or imagined?

What can we do to remove or reduce the impediments?

During this forum

Focus on the process of taxonomy What do we want to do? Do we need to do it?

If the answer is yes How can we do it better? How can we do it more efficiently? How can we do it cheaper? How can we do it faster? How can we reach more and wider audiences?

Engage, interact, hijack the discussion

HubRIS and TRIN are ‘works in progress’