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,
