143 lines
6.9 KiB
Plaintext
143 lines
6.9 KiB
Plaintext
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RogerHyam" date="1141638969" format="1.1" version="1.2"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="TipSurveyResults"}%
|
||
|
|
---+ What do you see as TDWG's GREATEST STRENGTH?
|
||
|
|
(back to TipSurveyResults)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_A wide base of volunteer contributors and the goodwill of a wide range of bodies to see TDWG achieve its goals._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Aggregation of scientists_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Attempt to establish communication between taxonomists involved in creation of taxonomic databases_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Being an open, democratic organization and hopefully people will therefor follow standards set by TDWG_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_BRU standard_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Chaos and creativity. Dedicated and knowledgable people come together, people with a vision and a personal goal to achieve something in biodiversity informatics, not only people hired for prject money to achieve a certain task set by others. The latter seems to be strongly dominant in some GBIF meetings, where 'node managers' or even some GBIF personal shows little personal interest in their work._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Core of dedicated members_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Depth of experience of its membership._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Do not know. Am not enough of a computer person to be able to participate in discussions - nor can I afford to attend meetings. I had hoped it would ensure that I would know what is going on and why but I cannot say that I feel it does._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Don't know yet._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Energy and enthusiasum of members_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Engagement of a committed and knowledgeable community of biodiversity informatics practioners, with partictular strenghts related to taxonomy and natural history collections. The organization is very inclusive with respect to self-selection and involvement in different workgroups and activities. The flip side (really a weakness) is that it is sometimes difficult for newcomers to understand the processes and figure out how to get engaged._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_established community_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Existing cooperative user base, due largely to 'non-partisan' status (i.e., focused more on how data are exchanged, than on who should manage the exchange)_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Expertise and goodwill_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Good track record for setting useful standards for Botany_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_great technical expertise_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_informtion exchange, standardization,_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_International group of interested and informed individuals_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_International membership_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_international participation_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_It is the only *international* organization with the mission of developing standards for biodiversity informatics. It is the place to come to participate in this conceptual arena._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_It is the 'only game in town' when it comes to developing, reviewing and approving standards, even if they are not yet formal in the sense of carrying weight outside TDWG_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_It's a central place where one can download standards- _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Its collaborative, open, inclusive nature. Perhaps its greatest strength has been its ability to mobilise a massive voluntary workforce. As noted below, however, this strength is also its weakness. TDWG arose out of a need and has been amazing in that it has been able to continue sitting at the leading edge (we hope not the bleeding edge) of its science, and been able to evolve as the technologies and scope evolved [This process is a contination of that evolution]. One of its strengths is its open nature where its 'members' have identified a need and have then been involved in aiding in the development of a standard to cover that need. Perhaps a strength is in the nature of its membership (which does, however need expanding), but its integration of both the technical and the user community in developing a standard and the user not just passing on the need to the developers to develop a standard in isolation. This integration between users and developers needs to be maintained in any restructuring of TDWG._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Its diverse membership_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_its international membership_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Its international membership, depth of expertise, and openness._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_its 'published' standards_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Its recognized worldwide as the leading organization in Standards (Structure and Protocols) in the field. Its international representation and participative process assigns it a unique role in the process of defining standards. It comes naturally that any other inititative's proposal should either comply TDWG's recommendations or propose its ideas at TDWG._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Its relations with GBIF and CODATA._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_It's strenght is also it's weakness; a big community of people and institutions that freely provide their knowledge._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Large base of taxonomic expertise, mostly without commercial influence._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_mix of biological & computer science knowledge_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Multi-institutional - not driven by single agenda - crossing many nations_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Not able to offer an informed opinion._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Organisational skills_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Organistational skills_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_practioner-led organisation_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Publishing these working collections and making them widely known to other taxonomic workers._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Recent reinforcements._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Same as number 6._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Standards and the current alignment with GBIF._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Strong activity _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Symbiosis with GBIF - yields support, priority, and importance to TDWG Second, I would say the dedicated volunteer people involved with TDWG._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Taxonomy and systematics are the foundation of all comparative biology_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_TDWG is the only real forum for biodiversity database 'techies' -- the meetings are invaluable for those in this field. Published, or at least endorsed TDWG standards are very good. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_TDWG possesses core set of people with a broad range of expertise who are dedicated to the interchange of biological information._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_TDWG provides democratic means for the review and adoption of standards._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_TDWG's members_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_That it has some very keen members._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The ability to use consensus to develop standards._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The combined commitment, knowledge and experience of the diverse TDWG members._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_the commitment of the people involved, and the will to work together for the common benefit_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The committed community of people involved. TDWG has over the last several years garnered the interest of more young scientists and technology experts. It's relationship to GBIF is a great strength, as it collaboration with other standards bodies, such as the Open Geospatial Consortium._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_the community_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The consortium of strong partners - the member institutes._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The enthusiasm of it's key contributors_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_the enthusiasm, experience, knowledge and skills of the members of TDWG_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The goodwill of the taxonomic community and the participation of many stakeholders_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The knowledge of people in it._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The knowledge, experience and dedication of its members._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The meeting itself - great networking opportunity_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The research community (of Biologists, Taxonomists and Bio-informatists) recognizes the importance of standards in exchanging data _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The strong desire from its members to create standards_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_To act as consensus guide for the systematics._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_uncertain; the fact that it exists as an international discussion forum for such issues?_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_variety of fields and geographic diversity in membership provides an excellent opportunity to come together._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Willingness to undertake this task._
|