Re: [Tdwg-obs] On observation definition / moving forward
With only comments from Bob & Arthur (thanks!), the latest version of observation definitions is as follows: "An observation characterizes the evidence for the presence or absence of an organism or set of organisms through a data collection event at a location. Observations are not necessarily independent and could be linked via characteristics such as time, place, protocol, and co-occurring organisms." With the following draft elaborations for various terms (many thanks to Bob Peet for providing most of these draft definitions): 1) occurrence "Occurrence" has been changed to "evidence for the presence or absence". The key idea is that the organism or set of organisms was either detected or not. We also need to provide an opportunity for the recorder to note the certainty. As an aside, recall we need to support minimalist protocols (e.g. "organism/community (not)seen in field", "organism heard in field", "scat seen in field", "tracks seen in field", "museum collection".) 2) data collection event An event, during or after which at least the minimum required data were recorded. 3) location Ideally, at least geocoordinates plus an accuracy term. Since there is a considerable amount of historical / legacy data that does not presently have a georeference yet has valuable information that should be included in observation databases and shared, we cannot at this time require data to be in a GIS format. I (Lynn) suggest: (a) Location information be required, preferably geocoordinates and mapping precision, but if not available then a text description and the finest level of geolocation using the Darwin Core attributes. (b) Location data include the representation of observations as point, line, or polygon data (with the necessary spatial metadata). 4) entity Dropped from the definition of observation. 5) could be linked Can have a pointer or pointers to other observations, thereby creating aggregate observations. Note that commonality of date, time, place, etc. is not sufficient in that the none of the observation authors explicitly made the connection Please share your comments / thoughts on all of the above definitions with this email list. If people are generally comfortable with the above as working defintions, then I'd like to propose that we move into the fun part of identifying attributes to be developed into a schema. Thank you - Lynn Lynn Kutner Data Management Coordinator NatureServe phone: (303) 541-0360 email: lynn_kutner@natureserve.org http://www.natureserve.org/
Lynn, I am reasonably happy with definition. The word 'protocol' what does this mean in this context? In your Locality definition a). I don't think you mean Mapping Precision here - it is only one aspect of accuracy/uncertainy. Also - not all coordinates will be attached to a map (e.g. GPS). I prefer any of the the terms 'Uncertainty', 'Accuracy' or 'Maximum Error' (or all three/four with Precision). They are all slightly different in meaning. My other suggestion revolves around the mention of Darwin Core here - is it necessary - some may be using ABCD, etc. and should we necessarily have the definition tied to a protocol Suggest: (a) Location information be required, preferably geocoordinates and a record of uncertainty (using accuracy, maximum error or mapping precision as appropriate), but if not available then a text description and the finest level of geolocation possible. With b) Is it worth also adding grid to point, line and polygon. I know that one grid can be included as a polygon, but it does infer a regular shape, and is perhaps one of the most used recording mechanisms for observational data. I don't quite get what you mean by "Note that commonality of date, time, place, etc. is not sufficient in that none of the observation authors explicitly made the connection". This needs rewording. Cheers Arthur
From Lynn Kutner <Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org> on 8 Feb 2006:
With only comments from Bob & Arthur (thanks!), the latest version of observation definitions is as follows:
"An observation characterizes the evidence for the presence or absence of an organism or set of organisms through a data collection event at a location. Observations are not necessarily independent and could be linked via characteristics such as time, place, protocol, and co-occurring organisms."
With the following draft elaborations for various terms (many thanks to Bob Peet for providing most of these draft definitions):
1) occurrence
"Occurrence" has been changed to "evidence for the presence or absence".
The key idea is that the organism or set of organisms was either detected or not. We also need to provide an opportunity for the recorder to note the certainty.
As an aside, recall we need to support minimalist protocols (e.g. "organism/community (not)seen in field", "organism heard in field", "scat seen in field", "tracks seen in field", "museum collection".)
2) data collection event
An event, during or after which at least the minimum required data were recorded.
3) location
Ideally, at least geocoordinates plus an accuracy term. Since there is a considerable amount of historical / legacy data that does not presently have a georeference yet has valuable information that should be included in observation databases and shared, we cannot at this time require data to be in a GIS format.
I (Lynn) suggest: (a) Location information be required, preferably geocoordinates and mapping precision, but if not available then a text description and the finest level of geolocation using the Darwin Core attributes.
(b) Location data include the representation of observations as point, line, or polygon data (with the necessary spatial metadata).
4) entity
Dropped from the definition of observation.
5) could be linked
Can have a pointer or pointers to other observations, thereby creating aggregate observations. Note that commonality of date, time, place, etc. is not sufficient in that the none of the observation authors explicitly made the connection
Please share your comments / thoughts on all of the above definitions with this email list.
If people are generally comfortable with the above as working defintions, then I'd like to propose that we move into the fun part of identifying attributes to be developed into a schema.
Thank you - Lynn
Lynn Kutner Data Management Coordinator NatureServe phone: (303) 541-0360 email: lynn_kutner@natureserve.org http://www.natureserve.org/
_______________________________________________ Tdwg-obs mailing list Tdwg-obs@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-obs_lists.tdwg.org
"set of organisms" doesn't sound very natural to me. What about "group of organisms"? However, doesn't the second sentence covers this anyway? Hannu Lynn Kutner wrote:
With only comments from Bob & Arthur (thanks!), the latest version of observation definitions is as follows:
"An observation characterizes the evidence for the presence or absence of an organism or set of organisms through a data collection event at a location. Observations are not necessarily independent and could be linked via characteristics such as time, place, protocol, and co-occurring organisms."
participants (3)
-
Hannu Saarenmaa -
Lynn Kutner -
tdwg＠achapman.org