1. Scaling up The International Plant Names Index (IPNI) James A. Macklin Harvard University Herbaria Paul J. Morris Harvard University Herbaria & Museum of Comparative Zoology & The IPNI Steering Committee

2. Outline What is a nomenclator? IPNI Reevaluation An architecture for the future

3. Nomenclators Objective information on botanical names Governed by The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) Crataegus [Genus] L. [Author] Sp. Pl. 1: 475. 1753 [Publication] Crataegus coccinea [Genus, Specific epithet] L. [Author] Sp. Pl. 1:476. 1753 [Publication]

4. IPNI Partnership of 3 institutions (since 1996): The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew  Index Kewensis (IK): Global The Harvard University Herbaria  Gray Card Index (GCI): Americas Australian National Herbarium  Australian Plant Names Index (APNI): Australia

5. IPNI Very successful as evidenced by its heavy usage. Staff specifically dedicated to maintaining and updating the index. Quality control is a top priority.  record validation

14. Reevaluation Social issues related to institutions changing focus and dedication of resources. Other institutions have accumulated valuable nomenclatural data. Nomenclators are a lot of work to maintain! Database systems have a lifecycle

15. Interacting with Standards IPNI can provide new digital versions of the TDWG paper standards (Brummit and Powell; Botanico Periodicum Huntianum; Taxonomic Literature II) and a standard name list. Nomenclators are NOT only relevant to taxonomists anymore. The interaction of users through newer TDWG standards for data interchange.

16. Yde de Jong 2007

17. Future Considerations Partners have other objective data that could be added (i.e., type locality; type specimen location) Link to protologues via Botanicus and the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) Single subjective consensus synonymy for plants of the world. Registration of plant names?

18. An architecture for the future...

19. Technical Noel Cross Matt Taylor Sylvie Jami Nicola Nicolson* Sally Hinchcliffe* Greg Whitbred* Julius Welby * still involved in IPNI

20. Some Requirements Non-Functional  Political Pressures: Separate control of data by Partners Functional  Data Entry/Edit at multiple sites  Batch Changes  Single Authoritative list of Taxon Names  Core and additional data unique to each partner  better integrative services

21. Replication Business Rules Replication Business Rules APNIKewHUH WebEditOAI LSIDEdit Editor Client Editor Client RMI HTMLXMLRDF Bulk Δ Tool RMI

22. IPNI APNI Kew HUH AJAX/Web Editor Interface Java Editor Client Etc... Single Central Database

23. IPNI APNI Kew HUH Database Federation Replication IPNI Replication IPNI Replication

24. Network of Peers APNI Australia IPNI Distributed Index Kew HUH Americas Eurasia/ Africa

25. IPNI APNI Kew HUH IPNI APNI Kew HUH Replication IPNI Replication IPNI Replication APNI Kew HUH

26. Questions... What does the community want IPNI to provide? What is the appropriate role for IPNI with regard to TDWG standards, especially the paper ones? How much of the (name strings, taxon names, synonymys, taxon concepts) stack should IPNI provide? What is the best choice of architecture for IPNI in an ecosystem of distributed resources?