[Tdwg-obs] Survey and Monitoring
Hello, Like Lynn, I would like the observations standard to support observations of communities as well as individual organisms Consider the VegBank approach (http://vegbank.org/vegdocs/design/erd/vegbank_erd.pdf): A vegetation plot (location) can have multiple plotObservation events, each of which can have multiple taxonObservation events (collectively such as density, or of individuals), each of which can have multiple identification events, each of which can refer to multiple taxonomic concepts. In addition, the plotObservation can have multiple identifications, and each of these can refer to multiple community concepts. With this approach permanent information about the location, such as geocoordinates, is associated with the plot. Transient information about the plot is recorded with the plotObservation and here we also could refer to protocols applied. Monitoring can be handled by a recursive loop linking plotObservations or taxonObservations Bob Peet ====================================================================== Robert K. Peet, Professor & Chair Phone: 919-962-6942 Curriculum in Ecology, CB#3275 Fax: 919-962-6930 University of North Carolina Cell: 919-368-4971 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3275 USA Email: peet@unc.edu http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/ http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/ ======================================================================
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:35:44 -0500 From: Steve Kelling <stk2@cornell.edu> Subject: [Tdwg-obs] Survey and Monitoring
I apologize for the delay in posting to the listserve. As I am sure it is true for you, it has been quite hectic for me.
My feeling is that we have a good definition for the integrative element of observational data. That is, the element in which observational data can be (and is) incorporated in existing Natural History collections data. To reiterate; An observation is a collection event that describes a phenomenon, and is bound to the spatiotemporal location where it was made. Furthermore, an observation describes an occurrence and can be linked to descriptions of other occurrences. Now we can begin to talk about the methods of aggregating observations. To do this means issues such as protocol (including precision, accuracy, and certainty in the methods), data quality, inferring negative data, and detectability must be addressed. It is at this point where observational data can begin to contribute and extend the value of the data held within biodiversity data networks.
What I would like to do is begin a discussion on survey/monitoring techniques and issues. Specifically I would like to develop the necessary requirements to define methodology metadata. For example, how does one distinguish between surveys and monitoring? For example, I consider monitoring as a protocol- driven collection of observational data gathered repeatedly over a time series at a specific location. Thus, I would distinguish monitoring from a survey in that a survey documents an occurrence of an organism(s) at a location at a particular time, and does not include repeated sampling.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Steve Kelling Cornell Lab of Ornithology 607-254-2478 (work) 607-342-1029 (cell)
Good support for plot observations is important, because that is how the forestry community manages their data. If they can identify their own concepts in this standard, that willl potentially open access to a very large number of databases. Forest plots are not really different from vegetation plots, as described below by Bob. The most notable addition would be measurements of diameter, height, etc. These may not have direct relevance for biodiversity studies but in order to find acceptance from the forestry community, I think it would be advantageous to design an easy mechanism for linking such data to the plot observation data. In forest surveys there also often are observations on harmful agents (insects, etc.) that would be linked to some of the tree cohorts in a plot. Regards, Hannu Saarenmaa Robert K. Peet wrote:
Hello,
Like Lynn, I would like the observations standard to support observations of communities as well as individual organisms
Consider the VegBank approach (http://vegbank.org/vegdocs/design/erd/vegbank_erd.pdf):
A vegetation plot (location) can have multiple plotObservation events, each of which can have multiple taxonObservation events (collectively such as density, or of individuals), each of which can have multiple identification events, each of which can refer to multiple taxonomic concepts. In addition, the plotObservation can have multiple identifications, and each of these can refer to multiple community concepts.
With this approach permanent information about the location, such as geocoordinates, is associated with the plot. Transient information about the plot is recorded with the plotObservation and here we also could refer to protocols applied. Monitoring can be handled by a recursive loop linking plotObservations or taxonObservations
Bob Peet ====================================================================== Robert K. Peet, Professor & Chair Phone: 919-962-6942 Curriculum in Ecology, CB#3275 Fax: 919-962-6930 University of North Carolina Cell: 919-368-4971 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3275 USA Email: peet@unc.edu
http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/ http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/ ======================================================================
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:35:44 -0500 From: Steve Kelling <stk2@cornell.edu> Subject: [Tdwg-obs] Survey and Monitoring
I apologize for the delay in posting to the listserve. As I am sure it is true for you, it has been quite hectic for me.
My feeling is that we have a good definition for the integrative element of observational data. That is, the element in which observational data can be (and is) incorporated in existing Natural History collections data. To reiterate; An observation is a collection event that describes a phenomenon, and is bound to the spatiotemporal location where it was made. Furthermore, an observation describes an occurrence and can be linked to descriptions of other occurrences. Now we can begin to talk about the methods of aggregating observations. To do this means issues such as protocol (including precision, accuracy, and certainty in the methods), data quality, inferring negative data, and detectability must be addressed. It is at this point where observational data can begin to contribute and extend the value of the data held within biodiversity data networks.
What I would like to do is begin a discussion on survey/monitoring techniques and issues. Specifically I would like to develop the necessary requirements to define methodology metadata. For example, how does one distinguish between surveys and monitoring? For example, I consider monitoring as a protocol- driven collection of observational data gathered repeatedly over a time series at a specific location. Thus, I would distinguish monitoring from a survey in that a survey documents an occurrence of an organism(s) at a location at a particular time, and does not include repeated sampling.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Steve Kelling Cornell Lab of Ornithology 607-254-2478 (work) 607-342-1029 (cell)
_______________________________________________ Tdwg-obs mailing list Tdwg-obs@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-obs_lists.tdwg.org
I would agree with Hannu, but there will be many other like communities that will have different types of survey requirements as well. What I believe would be worth while would be for a central standard for observations and basic/minimal survey information, with the ability to have small specific extensions for specialised surveys (forestry, marine, fresh water aquatic fish, etc.) that will each have specific requirements. As I would see it, the Observation Standard would be the common-denominator fields that could be appended by extra community-specific fields as appropriate. regards Arthur Chapman
From Hannu Saarenmaa <hsaarenmaa@gbif.org> on 15 Nov 2005:
Good support for plot observations is important, because that is how the
forestry community manages their data. If they can identify their own concepts in this standard, that willl potentially open access to a very large number of databases. Forest plots are not really different from vegetation plots, as described below by Bob. The most notable addition would be measurements of diameter, height, etc. These may not have direct relevance for biodiversity studies but in order to find acceptance from the forestry community, I think it would be advantageous
to design an easy mechanism for linking such data to the plot observation data. In forest surveys there also often are observations on harmful agents (insects, etc.) that would be linked to some of the tree cohorts in a plot.
Regards, Hannu Saarenmaa
Robert K. Peet wrote:
Hello,
Like Lynn, I would like the observations standard to support observations of communities as well as individual organisms
Consider the VegBank approach (http://vegbank.org/vegdocs/design/erd/vegbank_erd.pdf):
A vegetation plot (location) can have multiple plotObservation events, each of which can have multiple taxonObservation events (collectively such as density, or of individuals), each of which can have multiple identification events, each of which can refer to multiple taxonomic concepts. In addition, the plotObservation can have multiple identifications, and each of these can refer to multiple community concepts.
With this approach permanent information about the location, such as geocoordinates, is associated with the plot. Transient information about the plot is recorded with the plotObservation and here we also could refer to protocols applied. Monitoring can be handled by a recursive loop linking plotObservations or taxonObservations
Bob Peet
======================================================================
Robert K. Peet, Professor & Chair Phone: 919-962-6942 Curriculum in Ecology, CB#3275 Fax: 919-962-6930 University of North Carolina Cell: 919-368-4971 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3275 USA Email: peet@unc.edu
http://www.unc.edu/depts/ecology/ http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/
======================================================================
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:35:44 -0500 From: Steve Kelling <stk2@cornell.edu> Subject: [Tdwg-obs] Survey and Monitoring
I apologize for the delay in posting to the listserve. As
I am
sure it is true for you, it has been quite hectic for me.
My feeling is that we have a good definition for the integrative element of observational data. That is, the element in which observational data can be (and is) incorporated in existing Natural History collections data. To reiterate; An observation is a collection event that describes a phenomenon, and is bound to the spatiotemporal location where it was made. Furthermore, an observation describes an occurrence and can be linked to descriptions of other occurrences. Now we can begin to talk about the methods of aggregating observations. To do this means issues such as protocol (including precision, accuracy, and certainty in the methods), data quality, inferring negative data, and detectability must be addressed. It is at this point where observational data can begin to contribute and extend the value of the data held within biodiversity data networks.
What I would like to do is begin a discussion on survey/monitoring techniques and issues. Specifically I would like to develop the necessary requirements to define methodology metadata. For example, how does one distinguish between surveys and monitoring? For example, I consider monitoring as a protocol- driven collection of observational data gathered repeatedly over a time series at a specific location. Thus, I would distinguish monitoring from a survey in that a survey documents an occurrence of an organism(s) at a location at a particular time, and does not include repeated sampling.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Steve Kelling Cornell Lab of Ornithology 607-254-2478 (work) 607-342-1029 (cell)
=== message truncated ===
participants (3)
-
Hannu Saarenmaa -
Robert K. Peet -
tdwg＠achapman.org