211 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
211 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.2;
|
|
access;
|
|
symbols;
|
|
locks; strict;
|
|
comment @# @;
|
|
expand @o@;
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
date 2006.03.06.10.00.44; author RogerHyam; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.1;
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
date 2006.01.26.14.14.36; author RogerHyam; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next ;
|
|
|
|
|
|
desc
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="RogerHyam" date="1141639244" format="1.1" version="1.2"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="TipSurveyResults"}%
|
|
---+ What could TDWG provide that would be of most value to YOU, your ORGANISATION or your COMMUNITY?
|
|
(back to TipSurveyResults)
|
|
|
|
_A manual of how to actual IMPLEMENT the standards in typical applications (eg. databases/spreadsheets, etc)_
|
|
|
|
_A standard for descriptive data._
|
|
|
|
_A taxonomic database data dictionary or recommended software for newcomers that would facilitate the global sharing of disparate taxonomic databases._
|
|
|
|
_A taxonomic database standard WITH an easy to follow summary of what it means_
|
|
|
|
_A useable, accepted and fully implemented and supported set of protocols and data standards that are implementable at my institution and that work._
|
|
|
|
_Accepted standards for the dataset schemas and transport (via Internet) of biodiversity data sets_
|
|
|
|
_Allowing me to point to recognised authorities for stuff. Not primarily within the taxonomic community (where the battle is nearly won) but within related areas of conservation, biotech and biosecurity systems development._
|
|
|
|
_An 'out of the box' taxonomic database solution or structure (probably impossible)._
|
|
|
|
_An underlying core ontology for biodiversity data elements._
|
|
|
|
_Best practice guides and training workshops (could be virtual workshops)_
|
|
|
|
_Better advocacy of, and information about the adoption standards. _
|
|
|
|
_clear data standards that are easily implemented on a shoestring budget, that is, standards that do not require extensive knowledge in database management, XML, etc._
|
|
|
|
_Clear lead on targets the community should aim for. Promoting recognition that the application of information science to biology is itself a research discipline (though not pushing back the frontiers of Biological Science or Computing Science)._
|
|
|
|
_Clear, well documented standards and supporting software that can be adopted at different levels. Either used really simply or in very suffisticated ways. Tutorials and explanations._
|
|
|
|
_collaborative development infrastructure and developer guidelines_
|
|
|
|
_Consider joint or piggy-backed meetings with groups like the Entomological Collections Network, NSF PEET (Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy), others... It is much more difficult to get funding to attend this meeting when it is isolated and so far from home._
|
|
|
|
_Coordination of our protocols with those of the rest of the biological database community._
|
|
|
|
_Data interoperability standards and technology. Methodology and software (Java/PHP classes or out-of-the box software) for web service data provider tools and data portals with data harvesting, indexing and online public access to the index. Resolution of data objects and metadata._
|
|
|
|
_Database standards that are easily accessible and adoptible by practicing taxonomists, who may have little or no support from database specialists._
|
|
|
|
_Database standards that we could follow to ease the linking of disparate databases from around the world. Perhaps a recommended piece of databasing software (Biolink or Specify)._
|
|
|
|
_easily accessible, well-documented standards repositories_
|
|
|
|
_Easy and well organized access to exisiting standards as well as the standards that are under development. Before attending my first TDWG annual meeting, I found it very challenging to track down all of the relevant background materials that were scattered across many websites. Improved collaboration tools, such as email lists (with archives), shared work spaces, erc. _
|
|
|
|
_Ensure that any standards TDWG plays a role in developing are developed via a voluntary consensus process. Meaning, a bottom-up process rather than a top-down process. _
|
|
|
|
_established, up-to-date electronic data standards_
|
|
|
|
_Facilitating information interchange with people in 10 above_
|
|
|
|
_For registration of names to be develop, etc., organizations like Zoological Record needs standards, acronyms for collections. Botany has this due to TDWG, but zoology balkanized among dozens of standards for each taxon (mammals, birds, fish, herps, insects, etc.)_
|
|
|
|
_For standards adopted by TDWG to be of value they must be broadly implemented. TDWG needs to put effort into outreach for this to happen._
|
|
|
|
_Funding schemes to attend the meetings, workshops and discussions. One of my deepest regrets every year is not being able to fund completely my participation in the annual meeting or, more important, in the workshops TDWG carries out._
|
|
|
|
_Funds for participation in biodiversity standards development would be very welcome for our organisation._
|
|
|
|
_Good, robust standards produced in a timely manner that provides simple user documentation, that are easy to find, and reference, and that are easy to recommend to other communities. They need to be able to be adopted easily by other organisations without the need for a lot of user support._
|
|
|
|
_Guidance, reference implementations, and best practice information_
|
|
|
|
_Guidelines for image storage and retrieval; paleontology specific fields for dealing with time, litho- and bio- stratigraphy; integrated links for Nexus and morphometric files._
|
|
|
|
_I would be very happy to make use of a database system that can be used by the birdwatching community that can be used to make quantitative analysis possible. Seasonality, trends, geographic patterns, reporting patterns, bias identification. Most importantly one that will merge observational data with specimen data and withstand species splits, merges and allow for ambiguous species reporting._
|
|
|
|
_I'd like to see more web-based resources for download (esp. authority files). Software recommendations and reviews would be useful too (a lot of us keep reinventing the wheel with databasing software). _
|
|
|
|
_If indeed it were part of a 21st century systematics discipline, that would be more than sufficient._
|
|
|
|
_It would be really nice if there was a way to get people who actually know about computers to run the web-based services so that we don't each have to make our own little pages for our own group._
|
|
|
|
_Maybe a set of business processes that verify/certify standards compliance._
|
|
|
|
_Me: That work done under TDWG's name was seen as valuable by the research community. Organisation: That being associated with TDWG was good for the University. Community: That TDWG offered computer science interesting and challenging research issues to address and that being associated with TDWG would aid funding possibilities._
|
|
|
|
_More standards available in more accessible format._
|
|
|
|
_My only comment here is to encourage TDWG to remember that a lot of smaller museums and herbaria are tryign in earnest to be active, modernize, and remain an important part of the larger systematics community, despite having little if any internal support. Thus, whatever you devise, please make it useful as well for smaller institutions, and avoid needless complex models or programs._
|
|
|
|
_Networking._
|
|
|
|
_opportunities for funding, projects that would lead to more funds_
|
|
|
|
_Organisational support for subgroup documentation, defining charters, etc. Support of my recent working group proposal_
|
|
|
|
_Perhaps TDWG could just help make these happen, rather than do this themselves. Reference implementations of parsers (in Java and PHP) for the standards. It would make it much easier for me to implement the standards here._
|
|
|
|
_Provision of standards and working tools to use those standards_
|
|
|
|
_public outreach, information exchange, user-friendly taxonomic database management._
|
|
|
|
_Publication of data standards._
|
|
|
|
_Refereed conference programs._
|
|
|
|
_Revision of Plant Names in Databases standard._
|
|
|
|
_Seems an empty question, not sure what is really asked here, perhaps I don't understand it. Nothing comes to my mind on that question._
|
|
|
|
_simple, straight forward 'mandates,' expertise to help implement programs, low-cost or help funding projects_
|
|
|
|
_Software tools that make it easy for non-IT professionals to expose their data and query the global pool of data in a way that is TDWG-compliant (e.g., the DiGIR provider software, with a more user-friendly installation UI)_
|
|
|
|
_Standards_
|
|
|
|
_Standards and software_
|
|
|
|
_Standards for * Taxonomic concepts * Economic botany (uses of cultivated plants)_
|
|
|
|
_standards for capture and sharing of entomological data_
|
|
|
|
_Standards repository_
|
|
|
|
_Standards that can be operationalized in both legacy and new systems to help with cross compatibilty across communities (e.g., taxonomic community and conservation community). A focus on standards that enable rather than constrain, and that focus on exchange of core data, rather than on complex data models designed to accomodate all possibilities._
|
|
|
|
_Standards with information treatment analysis for databases development, and help for the availability of their information._
|
|
|
|
_standards, and effective advocacy of the standards_
|
|
|
|
_TDWG shuld provide: data exchange standards, best current practice documents, tutorials and training materials for biodiversity informatics projects._
|
|
|
|
_Technical assistance for implementation of standards_
|
|
|
|
_Toolkits that make it (comparatively) easy to participate in data capture / sharing, plus marketing or awareness-raising materials to explain why such collaborations are a Good Thing._
|
|
|
|
_Updated BRU standard_
|
|
|
|
_Web-based resources for education about TDWG standards and tool kits for implementation._
|
|
|
|
_What working collections are out there, and what is their main emphasis._
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RogerHyam" date="1138284876" format="1.1" version="1.1"}%
|
|
d3 1
|
|
a3 2
|
|
|
|
---+ What could TDWG provide that would be of most value to YOU, your ORGANISATION or your COMMUNITY?
|
|
d6 1
|
|
a6 3
|
|
_(Perhaps TDWG could just help make these happen, rather than do this themselves.) Reference implementations of parsers (in Java and PHP) for the standards. It would make it much easier for me to implement the standards here._
|
|
|
|
_a manual of how to actual IMPLEMENT the standards in typical applications (eg. databases/spreadsheets, etc)_
|
|
d16 1
|
|
a16 1
|
|
_accepted standards for the dataset schemas and transport (via Internet) of biodiversity data sets_
|
|
d26 1
|
|
a26 1
|
|
_Better advocacy of, and information about the adoption standards._
|
|
d48 1
|
|
a48 1
|
|
_Easy and well organized access to exisiting standards as well as the standards that are under development. Before attending my first TDWG annual meeting, I found it very challenging to track down all of the relevant background materials that were scattered across many websites. Improved collaboration tools, such as email lists (with archives), shared work spaces, erc._
|
|
d50 1
|
|
a50 1
|
|
_Ensure that any standards TDWG plays a role in developing are developed via a voluntary consensus process. Meaning, a bottom-up process rather than a top-down process._
|
|
a69 2
|
|
_I do not know._
|
|
|
|
d72 1
|
|
a72 1
|
|
_I'd like to see more web-based resources for download (esp. authority files). Software recommendations and reviews would be useful too (a lot of us keep reinventing the wheel with databasing software)._
|
|
d90 4
|
|
d114 2
|
|
d132 2
|
|
a136 3
|
|
|
|
(back to TipSurveyResults)
|
|
-- Main.RogerHyam - 26 Jan 2006@
|