Maybe each taxonomic database needs its own face' with a visible organismal and taxonomic orientation, as well as an invisible database function. It is free but unstable. It is possible to do quite a bit of database updating and editing with forms on the web - this separates the complexity from the content providers. The content providers and administrators should have at least a vague idea of relational data base function and complexity so that they don't have unrealistic expectations. Information and goals When setting out goals, keep in mind that this new media is excellent at handling certain kinds of information and not so good at others.
Databases do extremely well with hierarchical information such as classification.
Standard fields such as weight or age at maturity also work well, but we must decide which population and what references to follow. Images can work well but take up huge amounts of space and download time. Data in odd formats, data fields of widely varying size, datasets with many missing fields, or repeated data can all cause problems and do not work well. Basically, it is important to have some idea about what can and can't be done if you want to set realistic goals. Right now CephBase, FishBase and OBIS are all using Access.