More Like this

1. Avenues into Integration: Communicating taxonomic intelligence from sender to recipient

   https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.4.59006  

   Sterner, Beckett ; Upham, Nathan ; Sen, Atriya ; Franz, Nico ( October 2020 , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)

   “What is crucial for your ability to communicate with me… pivots on the recipient’s capacity to interpret—to make good inferential sense of the meanings that the declarer is able to send” (Rescher 2000, p148). Conventional approaches to reconciling taxonomic information in biodiversity databases have been based on string matching for unique taxonomic name combinations (Kindt 2020, Norman et al. 2020). However, in their original context, these names pertain to specific usages or taxonomic concepts, which can subsequently vary for the same name as applied by different authors. Name-based synonym matching is a helpful first step (Guala 2016, Correia et al. 2018), but may still leave considerable ambiguity regarding proper usage (Fig. 1). Therefore, developing "taxonomic intelligence" is the bioinformatic challenge to adequately represent, and subsequently propagate, this complex name/usage interaction across trusted biodiversity data networks. How do we ensure that senders and recipients of biodiversity data not only can share messages but do so with “good inferential sense” of their respective meanings? Key obstacles have involved dealing with the complexity of taxonomic name/usage modifications through time, both in terms of accounting for and digitally representing the long histories of taxonomic change in most lineages. An important critique of proposals tomore »use name-to-usage relationships for data aggregation has been the difficulty of scaling them up to reach comprehensive coverage, in contrast to name-based global taxonomic hierarchies (Bisby 2011). The Linnaean system of nomenclature has some unfortunate design limitations in this regard, in that taxonomic names are not unique identifiers, their meanings may change over time, and the names as a string of characters do not encode their proper usage, i.e., the name “Genus species” does not specify a source defining how to use the name correctly (Remsen 2016, Sterner and Franz 2017). In practice, many people provide taxonomic names in their datasets or publications but not a source specifying a usage. The information needed to map the relationships between names and usages in taxonomic monographs or revisions is typically not presented it in a machine-readable format. New approaches are making progress on these obstacles. Theoretical advances in the representation of taxonomic intelligence have made it increasingly possible to implement efficient querying and reasoning methods on name-usage relationships (Chen et al. 2014, Chawuthai et al. 2016, Franz et al. 2015). Perhaps most importantly, growing efforts to produce name-usage mappings on a medium scale by data providers and taxonomic authorities suggest an all-or-nothing approach is not required. Multiple high-profile biodiversity databases have implemented internal tools for explicitly tracking conflicting or dynamic taxonomic classifications, including eBird using concept relationships from AviBase (Lepage et al. 2014); NatureServe in its Biotics database; iNaturalist using its taxon framework (Loarie 2020); and the UNITE database for fungi (Nilsson et al. 2019). Other ongoing projects incorporating taxonomic intelligence include the Flora of Alaska (Flora of Alaska 2020), the Mammal Diversity Database (Mammal Diversity Database 2020) and PollardBase for butterfly population monitoring (Campbell et al. 2020).« less
2. Wanted: Standards for FAIR taxonomic concept representations and relationships 

   https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.5.75587  

   Sterner, Beckett ; Upham, Nathan ; Gupta, Prashant ; Powell, Caleb ; Franz, Nico ( September 2021 , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)

   Making the most of biodiversity data requires linking observations of biological species from multiple sources both efficiently and accurately (Bisby 2000, Franz et al. 2016). Aggregating occurrence records using taxonomic names and synonyms is computationally efficient but known to experience significant limitations on accuracy when the assumption of one-to-one relationships between names and biological entities breaks down (Remsen 2016, Franz and Sterner 2018). Taxonomic treatments and checklists provide authoritative information about the correct usage of names for species, including operational representations of the meanings of those names in the form of range maps, reference genetic sequences, or diagnostic traits. They increasingly provide taxonomic intelligence in the form of precise description of the semantic relationships between different published names in the literature. Making this authoritative information Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR; Wilkinson et al. 2016) would be a transformative advance for biodiversity data sharing and help drive adoption and novel extensions of existing standards such as the Taxonomic Concept Schema and the OpenBiodiv Ontology (Kennedy et al. 2006, Senderov et al. 2018). We call for the greater, global Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) and taxonomy community to commit to extending and expanding on how FAIR applies to biodiversity data and includemore »practical targets and criteria for the publication and digitization of taxonomic concept representations and alignments in taxonomic treatments, checklists, and backbones. As a motivating case, consider the abundantly sampled North American deer mouse— Peromyscus maniculatus (Wagner 1845)—which was recently split from one continental species into five more narrowly defined forms, so that the name P. maniculatus is now only applied east of the Mississippi River (Bradley et al. 2019, Greenbaum et al. 2019). That single change instantly rendered ambiguous ~7% of North American mammal records in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (n=242,663, downloaded 2021-06-04; GBIF.org 2021) and ⅓ of all National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) small mammal samples (n=10,256, downloaded 2021-06-27). While this type of ambiguity is common in name-based databases when species are split, the example of P. maniculatus is particularly striking for its impact upon biological questions ranging from hantavirus surveillance in North America to studies of climate change impacts upon rodent life-history traits. Of special relevance to NEON sampling is recent evidence suggesting deer mice potentially transmit SARS-CoV-2 (Griffin et al. 2021). Automating the updating of occurrence records in such cases and others will require operational representations of taxonomic concepts—e.g., range maps, reference sequences, and diagnostic traits—that are FAIR in addition to taxonomic concept alignment information (Franz and Peet 2009). Despite steady progress, it remains difficult to find, access, and reuse authoritative information about how to apply taxonomic names even when it is already digitized. It can also be difficult to tell without manual inspection whether similar types of concept representations derived from multiple sources, such as range maps or reference sequences selected from different research articles or checklists, are in fact interoperable for a particular application. The issue is therefore different from important ongoing efforts to digitize trait information in species circumscriptions, for example, and focuses on how already digitized knowledge can best be packaged to inform human experts and artifical intelligence applications (Sterner and Franz 2017). We therefore propose developing community guidelines and criteria for FAIR taxonomic concept representations as "semantic artefacts" of general relevance to linked open data and life sciences research (Le Franc et al. 2020).« less
3. Nomenclature over 5 years in TaxonWorks: Approach, implementation, limitations and outcomes

   https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.5.75441  

   Yoder, Matthew ; Dmitriev, Dmitry ( September 2021 , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)

   We are now over four decades into digitally managing the names of Earth's species. As the number of federating (i.e., software that brings together previously disparate projects under a common infrastructure, for example TaxonWorks) and aggregating (e.g., International Plant Name Index, Catalog of Life (CoL)) efforts increase, there remains an unmet need for both the migration forward of old data, and for the production of new, precise and comprehensive nomenclatural catalogs. Given this context, we provide an overview of how TaxonWorks seeks to contribute to this effort, and where it might evolve in the future. In TaxonWorks, when we talk about governed names and relationships, we mean it in the sense of existing international codes of nomenclature (e.g., the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)). More technically, nomenclature is defined as a set of objective assertions that describe the relationships between the names given to biological taxa and the rules that determine how those names are governed. It is critical to note that this is not the same thing as the relationship between a name and a biological entity, but rather nomenclature in TaxonWorks represents the details of the (governed) relationships between names. Rather than thinking of nomenclature as changingmore »(a verb commonly used to express frustration with biological nomenclature), it is useful to think of nomenclature as a set of data points, which grows over time. For example, when synonymy happens, we do not erase the past, but rather record a new context for the name(s) in question. The biological concept changes, but the nomenclature (names) simply keeps adding up. Behind the scenes, nomenclature in TaxonWorks is represented by a set of nodes and edges, i.e., a mathematical graph, or network (e.g., Fig. 1). Most names (i.e., nodes in the network) are what TaxonWorks calls "protonyms," monomial epithets that are used to construct, for example, bionomial names (not to be confused with "protonym" sensu the ICZN). Protonyms are linked to other protonyms via relationships defined in NOMEN, an ontology that encodes governed rules of nomenclature. Within the system, all data, nodes and edges, can be cited, i.e., linked to a source and therefore anchored in time and tied to authorship, and annotated with a variety of annotation types (e.g., notes, confidence levels, tags). The actual building of the graphs is greatly simplified by multiple user-interfaces that allow scientists to review (e.g. Fig. 2), create, filter, and add to (again, not "change") the nomenclatural history. As in any complex knowledge-representation model, there are outlying scenarios, or edge cases that emerge, making certain human tasks more complex than others. TaxonWorks is no exception, it has limitations in terms of what and how some things can be represented. While many complex representations are hidden by simplified user-interfaces, some, for example, the handling of the ICZN's Family-group name, batch-loading of invalid relationships, and comparative syncing against external resources need more work to simplify the processes presently required to meet catalogers' needs. The depth at which TaxonWorks can capture nomenclature is only really valuable if it can be used by others. This is facilitated by the application programming interface (API) serving its data (https://api.taxonworks.org), serving text files, and by exports to standards like the emerging Catalog of Life Data Package. With reference to real-world problems, we illustrate different ways in which the API can be used, for example, as integrated into spreadsheets, through the use of command line scripts, and serve in the generation of public-facing websites. Behind all this effort are an increasing number of people recording help videos, developing documentation, and troubleshooting software and technical issues. Major contributions have come from developers at many skill levels, from high school to senior software engineers, illustrating that TaxonWorks leads in enabling both technical and domain-based contributions. The health and growth of this community is a key factor in TaxonWork's potential long-term impact in the effort to unify the names of Earth's species.« less
4. Author-Driven Computable Data and Ontology Production for Taxonomists

   https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.5.75741  

   Cui, Hong ; Ford, Bruce ; Starr, Julian ; Macklin, James ; Reznicek, Anton ; Giebink, Noah ; Longert, Dylan ; Léveillé-Bourret, Étienne ; Zhang, Limin ( September 2021 , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)

   It takes great effort to manually or semi-automatically convert free-text phenotype narratives (e.g., morphological descriptions in taxonomic works) to a computable format before they can be used in large-scale analyses. We argue that neither a manual curation approach nor an information extraction approach based on machine learning is a sustainable solution to produce computable phenotypic data that are FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) (Wilkinson et al. 2016). This is because these approaches do not scale to all biodiversity, and they do not stop the publication of free-text phenotypes that would need post-publication curation. In addition, both manual and machine learning approaches face great challenges: the problem of inter-curator variation (curators interpret/convert a phenotype differently from each other) in manual curation, and keywords to ontology concept translation in automated information extraction, make it difficult for either approach to produce data that are truly FAIR. Our empirical studies show that inter-curator variation in translating phenotype characters to Entity-Quality statements (Mabee et al. 2007) is as high as 40% even within a single project. With this level of variation, curated data integrated from multiple curation projects may still not be FAIR. The key causes of this variation have been identified as semantic vaguenessmore »in original phenotype descriptions and difficulties in using standardized vocabularies (ontologies). We argue that the authors describing characters are the key to the solution. Given the right tools and appropriate attribution, the authors should be in charge of developing a project's semantics and ontology. This will speed up ontology development and improve the semantic clarity of the descriptions from the moment of publication. In this presentation, we will introduce the Platform for Author-Driven Computable Data and Ontology Production for Taxonomists, which consists of three components: a web-based, ontology-aware software application called 'Character Recorder,' which features a spreadsheet as the data entry platform and provides authors with the flexibility of using their preferred terminology in recording characters for a set of specimens (this application also facilitates semantic clarity and consistency across species descriptions); a set of services that produce RDF graph data, collects terms added by authors, detects potential conflicts between terms, dispatches conflicts to the third component and updates the ontology with resolutions; and an Android mobile application, 'Conflict Resolver,' which displays ontological conflicts and accepts solutions proposed by multiple experts. a web-based, ontology-aware software application called 'Character Recorder,' which features a spreadsheet as the data entry platform and provides authors with the flexibility of using their preferred terminology in recording characters for a set of specimens (this application also facilitates semantic clarity and consistency across species descriptions); a set of services that produce RDF graph data, collects terms added by authors, detects potential conflicts between terms, dispatches conflicts to the third component and updates the ontology with resolutions; and an Android mobile application, 'Conflict Resolver,' which displays ontological conflicts and accepts solutions proposed by multiple experts. Fig. 1 shows the system diagram of the platform. The presentation will consist of: a report on the findings from a recent survey of 90+ participants on the need for a tool like Character Recorder; a methods section that describes how we provide semantics to an existing vocabulary of quantitative characters through a set of properties that explain where and how a measurement (e.g., length of perigynium beak) is taken. We also report on how a custom color palette of RGB values obtained from real specimens or high-quality specimen images, can be used to help authors choose standardized color descriptions for plant specimens; and a software demonstration, where we show how Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver can work together to construct both human-readable descriptions and RDF graphs using morphological data derived from species in the plant genus Carex (sedges). The key difference of this system from other ontology-aware systems is that authors can directly add needed terms to the ontology as they wish and can update their data according to ontology updates. a report on the findings from a recent survey of 90+ participants on the need for a tool like Character Recorder; a methods section that describes how we provide semantics to an existing vocabulary of quantitative characters through a set of properties that explain where and how a measurement (e.g., length of perigynium beak) is taken. We also report on how a custom color palette of RGB values obtained from real specimens or high-quality specimen images, can be used to help authors choose standardized color descriptions for plant specimens; and a software demonstration, where we show how Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver can work together to construct both human-readable descriptions and RDF graphs using morphological data derived from species in the plant genus Carex (sedges). The key difference of this system from other ontology-aware systems is that authors can directly add needed terms to the ontology as they wish and can update their data according to ontology updates. The software modules currently incorporated in Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver have undergone formal usability studies. We are actively recruiting Carex experts to participate in a 3-day usability study of the entire system of the Platform for Author-Driven Computable Data and Ontology Production for Taxonomists. Participants will use the platform to record 100 characters about one Carex species. In addition to usability data, we will collect the terms that participants submit to the underlying ontology and the data related to conflict resolution. Such data allow us to examine the types and the quantities of logical conflicts that may result from the terms added by the users and to use Discrete Event Simulation models to understand if and how term additions and conflict resolutions converge. We look forward to a discussion on how the tools (Character Recorder is online at http://shark.sbs.arizona.edu/chrecorder/public) described in our presentation can contribute to producing and publishing FAIR data in taxonomic studies.« less
5. Preliminary Findings of Usability Studies on an Ontology-Aware Taxon-by-Character Matrix Editor

   https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.6.90949  

   Cui, Hong ; Ford, Bruce ; Starr, Julian ; Reznicek, Anton ; Zhou, Yuxuan ; Gan, Quan ; Léveillé-Bourret, Étienne ; Lacroix-Carignan, Étienne ; Macklin, James ; Cayouette, Jacques ; et al ( August 2022 , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)

   Taxonomic treatments start with the creation of taxon-by-character matrices. Systematics authors recognized data ambiguity issues in published phenotypic characters and are willing to adopt an ontology-aware authoring tool (Cui et al. 2022). To promote interoperable and reusable taxonomic treatments, we have developed two research prototypes: a web-based application, Character Recorder (http://chrecorder.lusites.xyz/login), to faciliate the use and addition of ontology terms by Carex systematist authors while building their matrices, and a mobile application, Conflict Resolver (Android, https://tinyurl.com/5cfatrz8), to identify potential conflicts among the terms added by the authors and facilitate the resolution of the conflicts. We have completed two usability studies on Character Recorder. a web-based application, Character Recorder (http://chrecorder.lusites.xyz/login), to faciliate the use and addition of ontology terms by Carex systematist authors while building their matrices, and a mobile application, Conflict Resolver (Android, https://tinyurl.com/5cfatrz8), to identify potential conflicts among the terms added by the authors and facilitate the resolution of the conflicts. We have completed two usability studies on Character Recorder. In the one-hour Student Usabiilty Study, 16 third-year biology students with a general introduction to Carex used Character Recorder and Excel to record a set of 11 given characters for two samples (shape of sheath summits = U-shaped/U shaped).more »In the three-day Expert Usability Study, 7 established Carex systematists and 1 graduate student with expert-level knowledge used Character Recorder to record characters for 1 sample each of Carex canesens and Carex rostrata as they would in their professional life, using real mounted specimens, microscope, reticles, and rulers. Experts activities were not timed but they spent roughly 1.5 days on recording the characters and the rest of time discussing features and improvements. Features of Character Recorder have been reported in 2021 TDWG meeting and we included here only a few figures to highlight its interoperability and reusability features at the time of the usability studies (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). The Carex Ontology accompanying Character Recorder was created by extracting terms from Carex treatments of Flora of China and Flora of North America using Explorer of Taxon Concept (Cui et al. 2016) with subsequent manual edits. The design principle of Character Recorder is to encourage standardization and also leave the authors the freedom to do their work. While it took students an average of 6 minutes to recover all the given characters using Microsoft® Excel®, as opposed to 11 minutes using Character Recorder, the total number of unique meaning-bearing words used in their characters was 116 with Excel versus 30 with Character Recorder, showing the power of the latter in reducing synonyms and spelling variations. All students reported that they learned to use Character Recorder quickly and some even thought their use was as fast or faster than using Excel. All preferred Character Recorder to Excel for teaching students to record character data. Nearly all of the students found Character Recorder was more useful for recording clear and consistent data and all students agreed that participating in this study raised their awareness of data variation issues. The expert group consisted of 3, 2, 1, 3 experts in age ranges 20-49, 50-59, 60-69, and >69, respectively. They each recorded over 100 characters for two or more samples. Detailed analysis of their characters is pending, but we have noticed color characters have more variations than other characters (Fig. 4). All experts reported that they learned to use Character Recorder quickly, and 6 out of 8 believed they would not need a tutorial the next time they used it. One out of 8 experts somewhat disliked the feature of reusing others' values ("Use This" in Fig. 2) as it may undermine the objectivity and independence of an author. All experts used Recommended Set of Characters and they liked the term suggestion and illustration features shown in Figs 2, 3. All experts would recommend that their colleagues try Character Recorder and recommended that it be further developed and integrated into every taxonomist's toolbox. Student and expert responses to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX, Hart and Staveland 1988) are summarized in Fig. 5, which suggests that, while Character Recorder may incur in a slightly higher cost, the performance it supports outweighs its cost, especially for students. Every piece of the software prototypes and associated resources are open for anyone to access or further develop. We thank all student and expert participants and US National Science Foundation for their support in this research. We thank Harris & Harris and Presses de l'Université Laval for the permissions to use their phenotype illustrations in Character Recorder.« less