From: Arlin S. <ar...@um...> - 2010-10-05 16:05:43
|
Dear treebase developers-- Hello. As you know, in the next few years, we can expect thousands or tens of thousands of trees to be archived or published electronically in share-able ways (as opposed to the current situation in which most trees are just graphic images of trees, or they can't be linked to anything because the information in the tree consists only of arbitrary labels for things). So, now is a good time to think about best practices for publishing trees electronically, and to identify strengths and weaknesses so as to help the phylogenetic community move toward greater re-use, sharing, and integration of data. Last week, at the TDWG (Biodiversity Information Standards) meeting, the TDWG Phylogenetic Standards working group started a project to assess current best practices for publishing trees electronically. The work we have done so far is described here: http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/Phylogenetics/LinkingTrees2010 Dan Rosauer, Torsten Ericksson and I are going to finish up a preliminary report for TDWG, and then we would like to move on to develop a manuscript for publication in the next 6 to 8 weeks. We'd appreciate your help in making sure that we are making the best use of TreeBase and any other technologies that you might recommend for making trees available electronically. At the TDWG meeting, several of us experimented with the TreeBase submission process. We were impressed with the support for representing the 3 kinds of linkable quantities that we targeted in our assessment: species names (or LSIDs or other taxonomic identifiers), accession numbers, and geographic coordinates. The only weakness we have noticed so far is the lack of access to all of these data though treebase interfaces. Arlin ------- Arlin Stoltzfus (ar...@um...) Fellow, IBBR; Adj. Assoc. Prof., UMCP; Research Biologist, NIST IBBR, 9600 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD tel: 240 314 6208; web: www.molevol.org |