Re: [Treebase-devel] ABI proposal for phyloinformatics

[William P. <wil...@ya...>]

On Jun 6, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Arlin Stoltzfus wrote:

> OK, I agree that it is weakened, but while we are waiting for all the other problems in the world to be solved so that we can achieve metadata perfection, does this approach at least solve 80 % of problem #3 for molecular users?  Or do you think it is a much smaller fraction than that?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm totally in favor of doing anything that improves metadata -- especially features that make it easier for the submitter to assemble and submit the data.  

Another thing we could do, for example, is try to validate bio-collection codes with services at GBIF. e.g., if the researcher has deposited his specimens in the AMNH, we could search GBIF for each species (plus the AMNH museum code) and return a ranked list with most-recently-deposited specimens at the top. If the user sees his/her specimen, clicks on it, all other darwin core metadata get sucked in. (course, we still have the chicken-egg problem of those who submit to TreeBASE before depositing specimens in a museum). 

bp