142 lines
8.7 KiB
Plaintext
142 lines
8.7 KiB
Plaintext
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RogerHyam" date="1141639058" format="1.1" version="1.2"}%
|
||
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="TipSurveyResults"}%
|
||
|
|
---+ What do you see as TDWG's current GREATEST WEAKNESS?
|
||
|
|
(back to TipSurveyResults)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_1. Standard process still not solid. 2. Discussions have been ad hoc and not sufficiently open and consolidated. 3. Outdated name and subsequent perception. 4. Anglo-centric view of the world. Remember the disaster in Skt. Petersburg. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_A tendency to model its standards based on application domains (collection data, checklists, etc.) and hence to address many issues repeatedly and in incompatible ways as part of different standards rather than developing a component-based model._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_As with its strength is its weakness - its entirely voluntary nature and thus its need to rely on people with heavy workloads in other areas. It is these people, however, that NEED to be involved as they have identified the need in their area and TDWG has provided a vehicle to the development of a standard to cover that need, utilising the user who has identified the need as a key partipant._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Becoming too technical for the more common taxonomic database users to follow events, thus not gaining support from a broader community_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Chaos and creativity. Things get started but not finished. The personal impetus to participate despite other obligations becomes a liability if the other obligations take over as soon as you are back at work._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Communications._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_concentration of tasks and resources on xml schemas, and not looking at other technologies_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Dominated by taxonmists, sometimes side-tracked by minority theoretical 'computer science' issues, and lack of appropriate 'presence' outside its enthusiasts._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Don't know, but probably that it will enhance the perception that taxonomy is a kind of accounting that is something you look up in a reference, and not a science._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Energy and enthusiasum of members - just kidding._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Global representation_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Huge base of archival information and a plethora of (computer) platform-centric egos._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_I am not aware of great weaknesses_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_I do not know what you have done._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_I would have pointed out its delay in Standards approval as its previous greatest weakness, but currently, from a developing country view, I feel its greatest weakness is the difficulties (particularly financial) of attending and participating in the meetings, workshops and presential discussions where a lot of the interaction has been happening. Schemes like the one ABCD/CODATA group has could be promoted by TDWG for those representatives (particularly in developing countries) who have the knowledge and the interest to participate in order to assure worldwide and balanced representation. This in turn will lead to a better position for TDWG's recommendations as 'must do' compliance._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_If TDWG gets into the data business, i.e. collecting and maintaining data, then it will collapse of its own weight._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Inability to encourage wider participation by the taxonomic community in development and use of standards._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Interminable discussions of minor, almost esoteric, points_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Is not yet as widely recognized as the standards body as it should be. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_It has not been sufficiently well resourced - for whatever reason - and lacks professionalism. I still see little attempt to formal project management or firm institutional commitment to agreed targets_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_It still has the image of a 'gentleman's club' in the eyes of some. Requires a more formal structure and making that known through appropriate marketing techniques._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_It's amateur/voluntary nature which precludes significant input from stakeholders and the effective planning and advocacy of standards. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Its diverse membership_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_its lack of (longterm) funding, which causes for instance a limited outreach and informal standardisation process._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Its low profile and lack of useful information or guidance outside the annual meeting_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_It's very orientated to the botanical area._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_lack of a mandate poor (non-existent?) community profile acronym sounds strange-change groups name_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Lack of clarity about the standards development and decision making process. Lack of name-recognition outside of established circles. Perhaps also the need to cultivate and include as active members the next generation of participants._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Lack of clarity about what it is trying to do - and/or failure to communicate. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Lack of clear architecture, direction. Too many disconnected standards and approaches. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Lack of focus and purpose_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_lack of public awareness of TDWG standards_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_lack of publicity and legislative ability_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Lack of real useful standards for the whole community, not just Botany. Standards, like names of botantical authors and hebaria, critical and not complex. Zoologists need them before we get involved in mapping taxon concepts, etc. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_lack of recognised status_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Lack of social authority. We are in the end volunteers._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_lack of support and infrastructure (currently being addressed, I know)_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Limited experience of most scientists with the process of developing formal standards._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Limited visibility in public _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_low visibility of results? more penetration and relevance to botanical than zoological community based on past activities?_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Most TDWG members are biologists first, which helps because we know the 'business rules' but we need more input from true computer scientists._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Museum centric. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_My impression is that perspective is limited to public sector application. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_no strong standardisation requirements, lack of testing & reference applications_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_No working example of the system. No system that can be readily populated with data by biologists._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Not able to offer an informed opinion._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Not as well known across all disciplines as it will need to be to accomplish its goals._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Not enough adversizing or word of mouth._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_not enough exposure, awareness of communities. need to present a strong argument for acceptance of standards by a wide variety of users_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_not having sufficient impact on pulling the community together to then have a wider impact on related communities._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Not knowing what working collections are out there._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_not visible enough- not easy to approach as a beginner_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Perhaps some lack of employed developers for wider community/consortium purpose. Global standards infrastructure. But this is in many ways covered by GBIF?_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Plethora of incompatible platforms, software, data fields, etc._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Rapid progress is resource limited due to the volunteer nature of contributions_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Reliance on *volunteer* efforts by officers and staff (i.e., too much reliance on already-busy people devoting time out of their own personal passion) - although not yet manifest as a weakness, it could potentially become a problem in the future_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Same as number 6._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Slow and cumbersome process for making progress and decisions. Fairly narrow focus with respect to the types of biodiversity data. Most participants come from a taxonomic and/or collections management background, with relatively little involvement from people more directly involved in ecological, observational, conservation, natural resource management, and spatial data management communities._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Slow progress in development, or updating of standards; poor visibility in taxonomic databasing community; little outreach to taxonomic or musuem community who are grappling with bioinformatics issues. Annual meeting programs need a better balance between technical and big picture topics. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_TDWG does not have a high quality, stable and repeatable process for developing standards, so quality of standards developed varies widely and depends largely on competence and interest of participants. Also, lack of well defined roles for members of the various TDWG bodies prevent them from providing relevant contribution._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_That it sometimes seem to work in a vacuum._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The absence of a mechanism for recording decisions (and arguments) in a permanent and organized repository._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The communication/cultural gap between computer scientists and practicing taxonomists._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The potential for a small number of highly enthusiastic people with very particular interests to 'over steer' the organization and thereby lessen its usefulness to the larger international taxonomic community_
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_The TDWG name may be its greatest weakness. Every time I talk about TDWG, I have to explain that its mission is greater than taxonomic databases. The relationship with GBIF could also be a weakness if TDWG ends up being swallowed, but this need not happen._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_This loose organization makes it difficult to act accurate. _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Too many standards _
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Too much jargon. You need better outreach to biologists (curators like me) who do not have programming backgrounds but who are the end users of taxonomic databases._
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
_Wide representation_
|