wrote on :
> Plus, as Duncan has pointed out, Birdstack contains features
> for recording alternate names and cases in which names are
> used for more than one species. These systems are
> user-driven, so I'll just be bold and put out a call to
> Australia -- please help fill the alternate names for your birds!
If someone enters an alternate name for a species does it become
available to everyone? If so, who vets these alternative names? And
once entered can they be amended (e.g. capitalisation, hypenation, etc)?
And what happens if people enter quite a few alternatives? Are we then
presented with them all? That could result in even more confusion if
this results in name clashes with other species.
I guess what I'd prefer is to be able to configure it so that I only see
a particular set of alternatives, e.g. "C&B 1994".
> We had hoped that regional database administrators in other
> parts of the world would be interested in talking with us
> too, and it sounds as if Australia is interested! Please, we
> want to hear from you about how to integrate with the primary
> Australian data collection project. (Would that be Birdata,
> or am I treading on thin ice?) Ideally, we would like to see
> a system built into Birdstack that would allow users to
> submit all relevant and qualifying data to the Australian
> database(s) with one or two clicks. With whom should we
> discuss such integration?
So this would be the opposite to Dave Torr's idea of a site that
integrates data from several databases. This one could act as a front
end for several others, feeding data into them. I guess that would make
safeguarding people's data easy - we could forward it on to several
But I wonder what the implications would be for Dave's idea. The
integrated data could be full of duplicate sightings!
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)