Re: [Tdwg-obs] Monitoring definition and protocol repository
Hi all -
I think we're really close ... But I have a couple of questions and a suggested minor rewording. I forwarded Bob Peet's definition to several NatureServe staff, member programs, and partners who work with observation data. The following reflects the compiled comments from several people.
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. For example - a biologist out doing a bird survey happens upon some scat or tracks that he/she recognizes as a species of interest to his/her (say, wolverine) and records the GPS coordinates and some basic information about the date/time and location. Would this be acceptable for an observations system? Would it be acceptable to indicate the protocol as "none" or something similar?
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.
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)?
So ... With the above as background, what do people think of the following tinkering with Bob's suggested definition:
"An observation characterizes the occurrence, or documents the lack of occurrence, of an organism or set of organisms through a data collection event at a location. Individual observations are not necessarily independent entities and potentially can be linked through common characteristics such as time, place, protocol, and co-occurring organisms."
Thanks - Lynn
Lynn Kutner NatureServe Email: lynn_kutner@natureserve.org Phone: (303) 541-0360 www.natureserve.org
-----Original Message----- From: Tdwg-obs-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:Tdwg-obs-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Steve Kelling Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:19 AM To: Robert K. Peet; Tdwg-obs@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [Tdwg-obs] Monitoring definition and protocol repository
All, I really like Bob's rewording of the definition, and suggest that we all
refer to this.
Steve
At 12:38 PM 11/20/2005 -0500, Robert K. Peet wrote:
Hi Steve,
Try the folllowing revision, which is in part an exercise to see
whether I
understand your definition.
"An observation characterizes the occurrence of an organism or set of organisms through a data collection event using a defined protocol at a defined spatiotemporal location. Individual observations are not necessarily independent entities and potentially can be linked through common characteristics such as time, place, protocol, and individual organisms."
Bob
I like this definition.
I think it is important we recognise absences - a key reason for looking at observation data from my view. Also, I can see many uses for the opportunistic occurence that Lynn mentions.
Cheers
Arthur Chapman
From Lynn Kutner Lynn_Kutner@natureserve.org on 22 Nov 2005:
Hi all -
I think we're really close ... But I have a couple of questions and a suggested minor rewording. I forwarded Bob Peet's definition to several NatureServe staff, member programs, and partners who work with observation data. The following reflects the compiled comments from several people.
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. For example - a biologist out doing a bird survey happens upon some scat or tracks that he/she recognizes as a species of interest to his/her (say, wolverine) and records the GPS coordinates and some basic information about the date/time and location. Would this be acceptable for an observations system? Would it be acceptable to indicate the protocol as "none" or something similar?
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.
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)?
So ... With the above as background, what do people think of the following tinkering with Bob's suggested definition:
"An observation characterizes the occurrence, or documents the lack of occurrence, of an organism or set of organisms through a data collection event at a location. Individual observations are not necessarily independent entities and potentially can be linked through common characteristics such as time, place, protocol, and co-occurring organisms."
Thanks - Lynn
Lynn Kutner NatureServe Email: lynn_kutner@natureserve.org Phone: (303) 541-0360 www.natureserve.org
-----Original Message----- From: Tdwg-obs-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:Tdwg-obs-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Steve Kelling Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:19 AM To: Robert K. Peet; Tdwg-obs@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [Tdwg-obs] Monitoring definition and protocol repository
All, I really like Bob's rewording of the definition, and suggest that we all
refer to this.
Steve
At 12:38 PM 11/20/2005 -0500, Robert K. Peet wrote:
Hi Steve,
Try the folllowing revision, which is in part an exercise to see
whether I
understand your definition.
"An observation characterizes the occurrence of an organism or set of organisms through a data collection event using a defined protocol at a defined spatiotemporal location. Individual observations are not necessarily independent entities and potentially can be linked through common characteristics such as time, place, protocol, and individual organisms."
Bob
Tdwg-obs mailing list Tdwg-obs@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-obs_lists.tdwg.org
participants (2)
-
Lynn Kutner -
tdwg＠achapman.org