143 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
143 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RogerHyam" date="1141638895" format="1.1" version="1.2"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="TipSurveyResults"}%
|
||
|
|
---+ What would be your TOP PRIORITY for TDWG?
|
||
|
|
(back to TipSurveyResults)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_1. Promoting standards for interoperability of Taxnonomic Information_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_1. To define a more professional standards development process and put it into practice. 2) Develop online collaboration tools for standards development._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_1. To develop a more professional approach b) To review and monitor the state of standards adoption c) To develop a forward plan_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_A good standard for descripive data about species(taxa)._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_A process to continue creating ideas but then filtering them and having them reviewed, in a way that ensures reviewers feel they get personal credit for their review, perhaps in a way they can prove to their employer via 'online publications'._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_A taxonomic database data dictionary_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_A taxonomic database data dictionary_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Adopting a GUID (Globally Unique Identifiers) system to enable: 1 - interoperability between the TDWG standards and also with external data servers, such as name-servers. 2 - Persistence_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_All standards accessible from one place (website), all standards described in the same way, and the modular approach_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Arrive at a single standard for taxonomic databasing_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_as above_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Become more professional, with a secure realistic funding base._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Begin publishing a series of documents like RFCs to define TDWG approaches to biodiversity data, including adoption of external standards, TDWG-developed components and applicability statements describing the expected use of these in different domains._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Biology data interoperability_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Bridging the communication/cultural gap between computer scientists and practicing taxonomists._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Broader community recognition, especially among zoologists_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Broader involvement and awareness of its work among smaller projects and institutes_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Building the extent of employment of standards_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Create a series of easy to understand 'beginner' documents to not only EXPLAIN why these standards are useful BUT HOW they can be implemented in typical uses... I think the great number of applications for storing, managing and disseminating taxonomic information shows that people are going to CONTINUE to try to improve/modify/develop applications suited to their individual/organizational needs. They MAY opt to use some of the large, complex packages but TDWG should make it EASIER for an average biologist to integrate TDWG standards into smaller filemaker or paradox or excel spreadsheets- which are COMMONLY used by researchers. TDWG can encourage use of big packages (BioLink, Mandala, Specify, Mantis, etc), many, or all of which, adopt TDWG standards....but it should allow for alternatives too. SECONDLY: TDWG should try to make it easier for these packages to get away from 'taxonomic authority files'. We need a way where specimens can be determined under multiple classifications, some of which might disagree. This is a core feature of the entire field of systematics and taxonomy...that taxonomists disagree...and many of our products attempt to 'standardize' the actual names.....when what they should be doing is standardizing the 'type of information' and allowing people to disagree about what the name is or where it fits in a larger classificaiton_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Data access, exchange and interoperability_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Delivering useful standards for database structure and information exchange._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Determination of simple and useable standards_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Developing Basic Standards: Systematic schema, species description schema, distribution description standards, relating information schemas, etc._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_developing new standards_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_developing standards and protocols so that different classes of digital and paper-based data can be interrogated, assembled and mined for current and future purposes_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Development of an overall architecture into which all the future standards, protocols, services, and data formats will fit. Expanded view versus myopic piece-wise view._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Development of protocols for databases (antecedent to communication among scientists and the world community)_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Difficult. I think that all the major stakeholders (sic) need to be brought together to get systematics into the 21st century. We have all these initiatives by TDWG, GBIF, etc., etc., although the professional organisations seems mute; professional porganisations need to get their acts together. If TDWG has a person good enough with other people, I would think that getting together a select meeting of the crucial organisations wouldebethe first priority, stands_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Encourage dialog between those developing standards and those who will be implementing them, e.g. GBIF, developers of taxonomic authority files & database software developers. Also encourage dialog between developers of DwC and ABCD. For providers of taxonomic authority files TDWG has adopted standards for author abbreviations. North American authority files have not been following these. More fundamental problems with existing authority files need to be addressed. The BONAP authority file lacks a unique identifier for taxa. (BONAP does use a sequence number. When names are sorted by this number synonyms follow their accepted names. When synonymy changes the sequence number must also change. Thus the sequence numbers cannot also serve as stable unique identifiers for taxa. In the BONAP database a flat file attempts to serves both as a list of taxa and a list of synonymies. Since one taxon can be in part a synonym of taxon A and in part a synonym of taxon B the same table cannot serve both purposes. Phrases such as 'p.p.', 'auct. non', and 'sensu' are added to the authors of synonyms. This results in more than one listing for the same published name. The USDA PLANTS database, which receives names from BONAP, retains these phrases in the authors and assigns different unique identifiers to each._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_establishing infrastructure for standards development_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Facilitation of information interchange_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Finding these small working collections_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Form a technical committee under ASTM International (www.astm.org), a worldwide leading developer of voluntary consensus standards. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Generation and ratification of schemata and protocols for biodiversity data exchange_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Get more standards published/endorsed/distributed, make them available in a more standard format._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Getting better organised in terms of online collaborative tools so that those of us a long way from 'the action' can more easily be involved_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Guidance on the implementation of the standards that are there, and prioritisation of the standards that aren't_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_have a clear policy for standards acceptance, including timelines. establish presence at different meetings so that curators and museum personnel are aware of the efforts._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Helping keep existing standards up to date._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_I do not know. We tried through ECN but --._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Improve outreach to natural history curators._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Integration of all biological subdisciplines (inlcuding paleontology)_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Interoperability of competing formats._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_More formal recognition in the field. Ultimately we might hope for TDWG and the groups that set the various codes of nomenclature for organisms to be organized and recognized within one umbrella organization._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Not able to offer an informed opinion._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Promote the standards so _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Publish documents for implementors of biological databases. Create working systems that make use of the standards._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Raising the profile of taxonomy and systematics so that they achieve the same level of respect among scientists that genetics or physiology do._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Raising the visability of TDWG with the biological community._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Realizing that to be completely relevant to the organismic biological community, which now is highly engaged with understanding the Tree of Life, we must also expand TDWG priorities to include phyloinformatics and the small number of people involved in this area. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Regularize and professionalize the process for TDWG standards development and decisionmaking. Better understand what standards and protocols need to be develop not only to facilitate data sharing within the biodiversity informatics community, but with [potential] consumers of biodiversity data._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Rehabilitate the standards development process_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Rigorous criteria for adopting a standard._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Same as number 6._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_setting up an infrastructure to allow for the integration, collation, querying of TDWG data sets over the Internet - ie a GUID system + RDF, metadata and data standards_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Standards Development_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Standards repository and supporting documentation_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Streamline and provide clear documentation for the TDWG standards development process to enable participants to develop and finalize new standards in a timely manner to meet immediate needs._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_TDWG's priority should be to promote eficient efforts in standards definition. Even when alternative points of view promote development, chaos should be carefully avoided and TDWG should promote addressing and resolving disjunt topics. More active participation from other latitudes of the world should be considered and promoted also._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The latter point above._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Time machines for the TIP staff so they can get more done! _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_To become the (one and only) internationally recognized and known independent body for biodiversity information standards._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_to have a clear vision on how to develop those standards, make them interoperable and lasting_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_To make you aware of our database, which pulls together all the data from northern Ontario herabaria previously never digitized before the Northern Ontario Plant Database (NOPD) came into existence. See us at: www.northernontarioflora.ca_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_To promote standards (and to develop them when necessary)._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_uncertain; not close enough to the competing possibilities_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Update the BRU standard_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Whether as a subset of gbif or whatever - I amhappy with setting standards but please - think of both ends of the data scale - those that have access and those that do not. And just because we can do it does not mean we should do it. I am thinking of what I regard as an inane statement- 'of course we should image every specimen'. I do not know whether the speaker was a tdwg member but that is how the data side of things is coming across in the US. We really need to help those that cannot afford to be on line, those who find it a triumph to have a computer and hope they can afford electricity._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Working with organizations that will help it realize its goals, and having these organizations recognize that TDWG should be a common thread for cooperation in the development and implementation of database standards. The vision needs to be united, not fractionated--the user community does not want to have to reformat/repackage their data for each 'important' sharing body that comes along._
|