66 lines
8.0 KiB
Plaintext
66 lines
8.0 KiB
Plaintext
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RogerHyam" date="1131541789" format="1.1" version="1.1"}%
|
||
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="MeetingNotes"}%
|
||
---+ NFBR meeting: Biodiversity Data - Improving Management and Delivery (A forum for Local Records Centres)
|
||
7-8th November. Attended by Main.RogerHyam.
|
||
|
||
---++ Setting the Scene
|
||
|
||
NFBR = National Federation of Biological Recorders, a UK wide organisation for amateurs and professionals who collect biodiversity records.
|
||
|
||
LRC = a Local Records Center. These are usually county based organisations that try and collect together all the local biodiversity data (occurrence records, habitats and associated data). A third of these centers are run by local wildlife trusts, a third are run by local government and a third are 'independent' but usually very dependent on funding from local government. Previously these centres were set up in local museums and associated with a local natural history collection but the role of local museums has changed and effectively removed this habitat for LRCs. They provide input into local planning issues, education, local and national Biodiversity Action Plans (which are the UK response to Rio Convention). Most LRC are 'economically' challenged.
|
||
|
||
LRCs get their data from a network of local recorders (who are almost 100% amateurs) and from the results of surveys commissioned by various governmental bodies. The results from both these sources may be submitted to other bodies. Local recorders are usually part of some taxonomic based scheme. People who spend their time recording moths will be part of a moth recording scheme for example and will submit data to the society who runs this scheme. There are some 75 such schemes in the UK some ranging from extremely active to hardly active at all. The societies may be very big e.g. RSPB and BSBI (Botanical Society of the British Isles).
|
||
|
||
Recording schemes submit their results to the Biological Records center (which is government run). Where I believe it has traditionally disappeared.
|
||
|
||
Recently National Biodiversity Network has been formed as a central hub for UK data. (http://www.nbn.org.uk/). Most of the data in the Biological Records center is being exposed through the NBN. NBN publishes data to GBIF. LRCs publish data to NBN.
|
||
|
||
Although we are talking a lot about 'local' and 'amateur' here these LRCs deal with hundreds of thousands of records and societies with millions (BSBI hold 15 million records). The British Isles has had a tradition of amateur naturalists though many say this is slipping away because there is not such a semi-amateur community anymore - due to social and work environment changes.
|
||
|
||
---++ As Above So Below
|
||
|
||
It appears that within the UK we have a mini version of the global situation. They are behind in some issues and ahead in others but face basically all the same issues.
|
||
* GUIDs - there are multiple routes for data to flow and they have simple GUID systems to try and stop getting duplicates.
|
||
* Legal Issues - they have complex issues surrounding data usage. Any time data is moved it has to be agreed.
|
||
* Metadata - tracking provenance of data is important.
|
||
* Data quality - who verified what record, do you trust them etc.
|
||
* Trying to raise money by providing services.
|
||
* Data exchange standards - they don't quite have any - more below.
|
||
* Taxon concepts (they refer to a species lists).
|
||
You name one of the global problems and they probably have it.
|
||
|
||
---++ Application centric approach
|
||
|
||
Since the late 1990's JNCC (Joint Nature Conservancy Council) and others have contributed to the development of a software application called Recorder. This was initially a dos application, then a Windows Access based app. They have now moved on to a Recorder 6 which is backed by MS SQL Server (either the full version or the free, limited runtime version). This is a commercial product but can be had for only about <20>25. Most record centers use this product or try to adapt it or use there own thing. NBN is very committed to Recorder (partially because of the personalities involved I think). NBN species dictionaries are released as recorder updates.
|
||
|
||
There is another software package called MapMate which many amateur recorders prefer. (http://www.mapmate.co.uk/index.html) It is apparently much easier to share records between MapMate installs in an adhoc way. RSPB use MapMate. RSPB is massive so this is no small thing. MapMate does *not* use the NBN species dictionaries produced by the Natural History Museum.
|
||
|
||
Other people have in house systems. Some simply use extensions to their GIS setup. Whatever systems are used they usually have to have a Recorder and MapMate install to handle imports and moving things around.
|
||
|
||
Data is usually moved in Excel or Access files in ad hoc fashion.
|
||
|
||
Generally no one thinks in terms of data formats but in terms of applications. There have been format wars. Not sure of the current situation though. Speed read (http://www.nbn.org.uk/downloads/files/mapmate%20position%201.doc) if you want a laugh. I can understand why MapMate get 'miffed' if they are providing a very similar product for the same price as a highly subsidised government product and have more users.
|
||
|
||
NBN has issued standards (http://www.nbn.org.uk/information/info.asp?Level1ID=1&Level2ID=10) but they obviously haven't solved the battles between applications. This is one of the situations where the organisation that owns the standard also 'owns' an implemenation of it. The NBN data model IS the Recorder data model which leaves you stuffed if you want to innovate round it. This is the situation GBIF are avoiding by getting TDWG to set standards that they can use. The big question is: *Why don't NBN feel they can put forward their standards as TDWG standards or use existing TDWG standards?*
|
||
|
||
---++ Talks
|
||
|
||
I'll not describe the talks and workshops in detail. Most were interesting an pretty relevant. I have paper copy of the event on file if we need more info. The bits that interest us are in the stuff above.
|
||
|
||
---++ They need us and we need them.
|
||
|
||
Main conclusions/actions from the day:
|
||
|
||
* TDWG need publicity literature and a general push. Only one or two of the 'high up' people had heard of TDWG! We really need a general flier that we can circulate. This is difficult now with branding and establishing our position etc but is pretty important. I stood up and introduced myself in one of the workshops and said basically 'you should get involved' and pushed my card on people I spoke to.
|
||
* Generally we have been taking a GBIF world view - which as we are so much supported by Donald is important but... We (I) have therefore not thought beyond national nodes but TDWG has a broader remit. A guy looking to spend <20>25 on some recording software should be asking 'does it support TDWG standards?' and a guy developing a solution or solving a problem at a local level has just as much relevance to TDWG as a guy doing it in a national institution - he may well be able to dedicate time to developing a standard. *If TDWG is looking to expand this is a direction we haven't been considering* (unless you have Lee :).
|
||
* I need to contact AndyBrewer who is the technical liason officer with NBN and several people said he was the one to talk to. He may be able to inform the architecture process. I think JohnTweddle presented some of his work in St Petersburg.
|
||
* I spoke to MariaPacha who worked on this project (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/projects/ieppp/amateurs/index.htm) which is being replaced by something similar. These people are interesting because they are interested in the mentality of people sharing data. This runs behind everything we do but I don't know how we engage them. Apparently there is another 3 year project starting soon.
|
||
* I spoke to a guy from the Forestry Commission and he was very enthusiastic as he was looking for standards to publish data with. He is the kind of person who would benefit from a kind of occasional news letter/publicity shot type thing so he knows what is going on and can steer policy.
|
||
|
||
That is the end of my brain dump of the meeting. Please ask if you need anything expanded on.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-- Main.RogerHyam - 09 Nov 2005
|