Hello, I really like comments that Lynn has brought, and appreciate that she forwarded the definition around NatureServe. I do have a couple of comments, which are found in the text below. At 06:36 PM 11/22/2005 -0500, you wrote:

There was concern that including "defined protocol" in the definition of observation could be overly restrictive and prevent the inclusion in an observation data repository of high quality / high confidence information that was collected opportunistically and not as part of an official survey with a protocol.

While in some ways I feel that it is good to include a protocol in the definition, I can agree that it is not really essential in a primary definition of an observation. My reason is that in the NA bird monitoring community, even opportunistic observations are considered a protocol. These are characterized as opportunistic or incidental observations. Furthermore, in our development of the a data exchange schema for bird monitoring data the variable protocol figured prominently. So, while not part of the definition, I suggest that we make sure to spend some time on a discussion of protocols in future discussions.

We'd like to propose adding some language to incorporate explicit tracking of negative data. These would be data where a survey was conducted for a certain species (such as a rare orchid) in an area where it would be expected to be found, and the observer wants to document and communicate that information to inform future survey efforts, distribution mapping efforts, and activities such as conservation planning. This would be different from inferring negative data as is sometimes done with bird observation data.

I think that this is a good idea. The concept of negative data is an important one, with a variety of different angles. But, as with protocol I don't believe that it is absolutely essential in our definition. My feeling is that the way we use occurrence in the definition does not infer only positive observations. So, I suggest that we do not include this, but again spend quite a bit of time on this topic as we expand and explore the basic definition.

Also - does the "defined spatiotemporal location" need to be highly precise, or can it be defined generally (with spatiotemporal uncertainty as needed) to reflect knowledge of the observation or observer? For example - include imprecise dates (e.g. spring 1998) and locations (3 miles SW of the intersection of Clear Creek and Main Road)?

Yes, I believe that we can be less explicit on the location. So having more vague terminology in the definition is a good thing. Finally, I always feel that a definition should strive to get its message across in as few a words as possible. So, I might suggest: "An observation characterizes the occurrence of an organism or set of organisms through a data collection event at a location. An observation is not necessarily an independent entity and could be linked via characteristics such as time, place, protocol, and co-occurring organisms." The words or phrases in bold in the definition need to be developed more fully. As we work through the definitions of these words and phrases I believe that issues being brought up such as negative data, protocol, spatial temporal issues, and data aggregation can be addressed. Regards,