Ontology, Collection Development and Library and Information Science: the case of
Biodiversity.
Shubhada Nagarkar
Bioinformatics Center,
University of Pune, Pune - 411 007
Maharashtra, India, shubha@bioinfo.ernet.in
Harsha Parekh
Retired Librarian and Prof. of Library Science,
SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai - 400 020
harsha_parekh@vsnl.com
Geoffrey Bowker
Department of Communication,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA.
bowker@ucsd.edu
This paper presents an overview of the collection and organization of biodiversity data.
We analyze current trends in biodiversity informatics, including work on metadata for
biodiversity databases.
According to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility
(GBIF), the museum world now holds an estimated two to three billion-biodiversity
specimens, with 75% of these collections in developing countries. The two main
obstacles in documenting and using the biodiversity datasets are their heterogeneous
nature and their scattered distribution over the world. National and international
initiatives are underway in organizing and documenting these vast datasets housed in
natural history museums as well as in botanical and zoological surveys. Much of this
data is not yet digitized, and so is available only to individuals or small groups working
largely in isolation - especially data from the species-rich developing world. Because of
the scattered and diverse nature of the biodiversity data, existing worldwide efforts of
digitization are not much satisfactory to provide right information to right user.
Appropriate management of information and collection development in this area is the
challenging tasks and is new research area for Library and Information Science (LIS)
professionals. They can play a key role in organizing this information because they are
trained in cataloguing and indexing data systematically. They can contribute in the areas
like data standardization, metadata, thesaurus, terminologies and data interoperability
issues etc.
Most biodiversity research is associated with organisms in the field, which must be
properly identified. Species identification tools can and must be delivered for field and
laboratory research. A process of formal scientific description, and the terminology used
and ontology needed for the description of organisms is very extensive. The current
challenge for biodiversity informatics lies in the creation of descriptive systems (and
identification tools based on these), which are useful for specialists as well as for nonspecialist (Berendsohn, 2001). Thesauri and ontologies can be used to control
synonymous terms and also to show the relationship between concepts. A good example
of a biodiversity thesaurus is the Biocomplexity Thesaurus by NBII
(http://www.nbii.gov). The paper outlines the recent progress in ontology and and
thesaurus development in the field of biodiversity and explores this as a new opening for
LIS professionals in the organization of biodiversity data.
References:
Walter G. Berendsohn (2001) Biodiversity
http://www.bgbm.org/BioDivInf/def-e.htm
Informatics
Available
online
at