OPENKEY PROJECT: SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 MEETING MINUTES
Meeting time: 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm
Place: Manning Hall 214
ATTENDANCE: Evelyn Daniel, Jane Greenberg, David Knight, Mary Ruvane, Stephen Seiberling, Plato Smith.
Plato Smith, a potential new member of the Openkey project, introduced himself to the team. He is a first year PhD candidate at SILS and a Library Fellow with NC State University. His research interests are in the field of metadata. He is also currently working on a PDA field usage project in the College of Veterinary Medicine at NC State.
Mary presented a revised version of UNC’s Openkey project web site which is currently located at http://ils.unc.edu/~ruvam/openkey/OpenKey%20Draft.html. Key changes include a revised layout and color scheme, a new page with staff photos and contact information, as well links to a project calendar indicating upcoming meetings and related events.
1. David and Plato will send digital photos of themselves to Mary for inclusion in the new site.
1. Modifications to HTML formatting to insure site is compatible with web browser software other than Internet Explorer (e.g., Netscape). -- Mary
2. Relocation of final version to ibiblio server. -- Mary
Mary gave an overview of the Institute of Museum and Library Science's requirements regarding cost sharing documentation. As a condition of the grant, UNC committed to paying a portion of the salary and benefits for Jane, Evelyn and Peter, as well to share the costs of travel, supplies, and equipment throughout the project’s time period. Salary and benefits documentation is nearly complete, with the exception of Peter White. Team members were asked to keep track of materials, equipment or travel expenses that UNC pays for, that incidentally benefit the Openkey project initiatives. Examples include: Trips to conferences paid for by your department that add to our teams knowledge in support of the Openkey objectives; monthly use of department supplies (e.g., copy paper, film, etc.); computer equipment purchased by UNC that is dedicated in part, or whole, in the pursuit of the IMLS grant objectives.
1. Determine if existing computer equipment can qualify as a UNC cost sharing expense if used primarily for the benefit of Openkey project tasks. -- Mary
PLANT DESCRIPTION: CONCEPTUAL TABLE v1.1
Steve presented an updated conceptual table, replacing v1.0, in which many terms were added, especially new character states deemed important to the identification process. Modifications presented were based on input from Ken Robertson, Lesley Deem, Steve Seiberling, and Alan Weakley. According to Steve, the expanded table gets somewhat complicated when dealing with groupings related to “Flowers/Cones” and “Fruits/Cones/Seeds” warranting further review before finalizing. To view the revised table see (Note: items added are highlighted in blue): http://www.ibiblio.org/botnet/flora/OpenKeyExamples/Plant_Description_Table1.1.html.
1. Review of v1.1 to address Steve's concerns (see attached "Current Questions Related to the OpenKey Project"); implement revisions – Steve/Peter/Alan
2. Submit revised version to Urbana for feedback – Steve
3. Determine tree list to work with – Steve/Evelyn/Peter
1. Revisions to DTD's based on conceptual table modifications (after review by Alan, Peter & Urbana) – David / Steve to notify upon completion
2. Resolve versioning issue between Urbana (v1.6) and UNC (v1.1) - TBD
SELECTING PLANTS FOR UNC KEY
discussion was had concerning the selection of plants to include as part of
UNC's obligation to provide data for one of the two agreed upon polyclave
keys. The ultimate decision lies in the
hands of the botanical experts, therefore a final decision was tabled until
Peter White could provide his input.
Steve suggested that some of the non-native NC species, listed in the
original grant proposal, might be a problem. Evelyn proposed that strong
consideration be given to those species already documented in prior work, such
as the Plant Information Center [PIC], or at least selected from plants already
photographed and documented by Steve
focusing on common trees found in NC.
As for the level of rankings to use for the
Openkey project, Evelyn suggested we include family and species, noting that
the other rank categories are unnecessary to the project deliverables,
especially when considering the costs for input, plant descriptions,
documentation and related photographs.
Evelyn asked i
continuum scale could be used to represent various description features as an
Steve reported that the gymnosperm key has been resolved and can be viewed at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pic/GymnospKey/. While all of the pine species have yet to be
illustrated, the hardest part (the structure of the key) is now complete. Steve
uses of trichotomous trees
were recognized as a good idea.
Of interest, Steve noted that Alan Weakley has been involved in
developing keys most of his life (that actually work for people) and may be
interested in writing a paper on the topic with
Steve 's help.
1. Steve's email and contact information need to be added to the site – Steve
1. Term definitions, not currently included in the PIC glossary, need to be identified and an appropriate source selected for providing descriptions. –- Botanists/TBD
2. New definitions identified in item #1 need to be added to PIC glossary. -– Steve/Mary
3. New definitions need to be linked from Gymnosperm Key to the PIC Glossary. – Steve
4. Further discussion on how to display information, in various medias, may need to be explored (e.g., resolution issues – large vs. small screen, print formats, etc.)
DATA ARCHITECTURE STATUS
reported that she and Steve
have made great progress
towards developing a document outlining the projects architecture (data
structure/XML requirements). They have
completed a 19
page draft [user/password: plants/plants], broken down into three parts: 1)
Taxon DTD, 2) Character states DTD
(from conceptual table), 3) Image The fourth section, documenting the 'linking' DTD
retrieval were next discussed, including XSL (a method for turning XML into a
web accessible form), and questions concerning whether a separate database was
needed or does XSL provide a method for search and retrieval without one. Additional questions arose regarding: 1)
Which search engines work best? 2) Are we in charge of storing data or is that
Urbana's role? 3) Is OAI (Open Architecture Initiative) still under consideration?
4) Could Urbana's existing search engine, used in Brian's butterfly project,
provide a solution? A
formed, consisting of Jane, Plato and David, to address these issues and report
on their findings at the next meeting.
butterfly site and report findings; contact Br ian
for source code if needed –
2. Consult with ibiblio.org staff on recommendations for XML retrieval tools --
3. Consult with Steve Seiberling, as needed, for examples
For next meeting the following items and objectives have been identified:
1) Present an XML tutorial/overview for the team to have a better understanding of the methodology
'Architectural Team' presentation of findings and recommendations
Discuss members to be included in the Advisory Board.
Current Questions Related to the OpenKey Project
1. What list of trees to we wish to include in the project? (Evelyn and Peter have expressed somewhat different ideas about this.) Some of the trees on the current list are non-native or do not occur in NC. Do we want to include any of these species?
2. Should we use the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) numbers for the Global ID Number in the OpenKey database? (For information about ITIS numbers see http://www.itis.usda.gov/)
3. Do we wish to include any taxonomic information above species level in the database? (Perhaps family would be valuable.) If so, how should we record it?
4. Is it O.K. to include surface features of woody plant twigs along with those of herbaceous stems as the same character; e.g. Stem or Twig (diameter < 1 cm) Surface Features?
5. Can we include modifying terms such as narrowly, finely broadly, etc., in recording character states; e.g. leaf margins finely serrulate?
6. How should we record ranges of qualitative character sates in the database; e.g. leaf base cordate to truncate? Similarly, how should we record quantitative information expressed only as an upper limit; e.g. plant height to 46 m?
7. Do we like the current groupings of Flowers/Cones and Fruits/Cones/Seeds? An alternative might be to simply break these into four separate groupings of Flowers, Cones, Fruits, and Seeds. The later approach avoids having to split up the characters for cones into two groupings, one for juvenile states and the other mature states.
8. Please see other modifications to the Conceptual Table of Plant Description Elements which can be found at:
All changes made since the previous version are shown in blue.