Posts in Dataversity Public Discussion: Dataversity

Hi Matt,

I'd recommend contacting Ministry of Fisheries (<email obscured>) to
talk about NABIS (https://www.nabis.govt.nz/nabis_prd/about.jsp) and its
relevance for the Marine area.

Cheers
Derek

Rest of post

Hi Matt,
I don't know if you got any answers to this.
I have checked with people in EW and they report that they haven't taken
a serious look at it. However, the scientists use the NIWA database
called 'Fish', so you could perhaps build on that.
Also, EW have recently purchased a database called Ecobase, for
ecological/invertebrate-type data. It was built by iQuest based on ARC
specifications. ARC released the IP to iQuest so that the product can be
supported in a commercial manner. It is very configurable and might be
suitable for fisheries monitoring data.

Cheers
Jim McLeod

Rest of post

Good afternoon,
I have had some good feedback on the suggested One-Land Principles.
Namely in bullet-point form:

1. 1.For the sustainable good of all New Zealand communities,
2. Easy to join and open to all

3. 3.Federated with min. core, - no critical element => robustness
4. Communities of Interest, with feedback for disparities & needs
5. Competition, innovation & commerce, - rules for "open" results
6. Ongoing collaboration on funding, develop. & maintenance
7. Governance by consensus (NZGO included)
8. Data suppliers responsive to user needs
9. Not coercive, but visible compliance to standards
10. Pragmatism rules

The One-Land Pilot document has a fuller version of these principles
with explanations in footnotes.

It should be noted, that for the pilot some of these principles will
obviously need to be relaxed. For example point 6. (in full) "Ongoing
collaboration on funding, development, and maintenance, initially and in
perpetuity is critical".

The thinking behind this principle is:

1.
Initiation of collaborative ventures is notoriously hard,
especially so for non-profit organisations such as councils. There is an
obvious advantage for everyone to be risk adverse and sit back to the
disadvantage of the community. So collaboration is needed "up front".
2.
Once a collaborative venture is launched, increased
effectiveness and efficiencies occur when trust and confidence are
established. The data user has to be able to trust the data collector,
and the collector has to trust the data user (not to make inappropriate
demands).
3.
In establishing a data feed what are the liabilities and the
benefits leveraged. Is exploitation occurring?

So principle 6 is a check on these things.

Does that make sense?

Have a good weekend.

Cheers
Jim

**********************************************************************
This email message and any attached files may contain confidential information,
and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you have received this
message in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original
message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Environment Waikato.
Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email has been
scanned and is free of viruses. However, Environment Waikato can make no
warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free from viruses.
Visit our website at http://www.ew.govt.nz
**********************************************************************

We are currently exploring options for a fisheries monitoring database for use
as part of our State Of the Environment monitoring program. Although it early
days yet, it looks like there are going to be a few issues with the
multi-parameter nature of fish data (species, abundance, length, size/age class
etc) and the current limitation of Hilltop. Has anyone attempted to tackle this
problem yet?

Cheers

Matt.D.

Good morning,

Thank you for your feedback - though I do suggest that you reply to the
forum so that we can keep the discussion open.

Based upon your ideas and those provided by other forums I now have a
reasonable idea, at a high level, what the a data exchange might look
like. It is suggested that we start a Pilot of a One-Land data exchange
that has councils and other contributors serving data up to the internet
via WMS, WFS and KML servers. Attributes of these data (quality,
pricing, licences, discrepancies etc) are then managed via services
bundled into a Hub.

I now have a scope document for a One-Land Pilot (document available to
those interested - please contact me). For the scope I contracted Mike
Pownall (a Wn consultant with extensive knowledge about central
government geospatial issues and an experienced project manager) to
provide a technical overview and a realty check for the One-Land ideas.

With the scope complete we are now looking at the implementation phase.
I believe that we should ideally use or build upon knowledge already
within the local government sector. The thinking here is that we
encourage regional clusters of this knowledge along the lines of the
collaboration in Auckland (ALGGi), BOP (BOP LASS), Manawatu / Wanganui
(their LASS), Waikato (WaiGIS, WaiLASS?) and the Wellington cluster.

With this aim I am seeking technical knowledge and experience to provide
Councils with help in setting up WMS, WFS and KML servers (both open
source and proprietary). I am also seeking related knowledge to help
establish the Hub. I believe, if necessary, we can get funding for this
knowledge from a combination of TFBIS, Envirolink, SMF and Digital
Strategy funding (applications needed over the next couple of months). I
anticipate access to this knowledge being provided via virtual
collaborative workspaces initially using Google technology (cheap,
cheerful and readily available ~8-) ) and possibly moving to other
collaborative technology if appropriate.

If we can't source the knowledge from Councils, then I intend
approaching the Universities / CRIs and then if necessary industry. As
part of the Scope development I have already invited industry comment on
One-Land to get an idea of cost for the Hub and to give them a chance to
contribute.

But as mentioned, my belief is that we should build at least a critical
core of the knowledge within the council regional clusters.

So, do you or does your organisation have this technical and virtual
community knowledge that can be made available via collaborative
workspaces to others?

If not are you interested in building this knowledge within your region?

Cheers
Jim

**********************************************************************
This email message and any attached files may contain confidential information,
and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you have received this
message in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original
message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Environment Waikato.
Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email has been
scanned and is free of viruses. However, Environment Waikato can make no
warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free from viruses.
Visit our website at http://www.ew.govt.nz
**********************************************************************

Hi all, and welcome to the following new members of the Dataversity core group.

Peter Nolly of Taranaki Regional Council
Kathy Mortimer of Northland Regional Council
Lisa Forrester of Northland Regional Council
Peter Anderson of North Shore City Council
Leigh Honnor of Whangarei District Council

These folks have all joined the private Dataversity group,
http://dataversity.org.nz/groups/dataversity_private_discussion/members
as well as this public one.

If you have recently joined this group, please make sure your bio is completed
on your profile and post a brief introduction to this group, describing your
involvement or interest in biodiversity-related data management. (You can post
to the group simply by replying to this email.)

cheers,

Rest of post

Good afternoon,
Over the years, an issue that regularly pops up when people discuss
releasing data is the concern that the data will be misused. That the
data will be used inappropriately.

If we intend to improve data accessibility, how do we respond to this
challenge?

Jim

**********************************************************************
This email message and any attached files may contain confidential information,
and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you have received this
message in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original
message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Environment Waikato.
Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email has been
scanned and is free of viruses. However, Environment Waikato can make no
warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free from viruses.
Visit our website at http://www.ew.govt.nz
**********************************************************************

Hi Dan,

Your link has some excellent material and links to much more. It is
clear that there is a body of work out there that we can use. I am
encouraged.

The complexity of geospatial data itself means that we may need to
further develop the thinking here to be able to tag individual elements
of a data set e.g. say that the name of a road corner in Southland is
wrong, but at the same time being able to say (independently) that the
rest of that particular dataset in Southland is "generally reliable" or
some other quality descriptor.

Also, people at Landcare have suggested the creation of a confidence
meta-surface that could be optionally displayed with the data e.g the
digital terrain model (DTM). This might be displayed as a colour wash
over the 3D DTM.

So, as always in the geospatial field, more work is needed to cope with
the complexity.

I am considering that as part of setting up a pilot "data commons hub"
we could test more than one model for reputation management.

The trick appears to be to have the courage to do something and be
prepared to be WRONG. And then change and learn from it... i.e. pilot

Rest of post

Jim,

The "Reputation Management System",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_management
you suggest makes sense to me.

Ratings of the data affect the rating of the
contributor, which would affect the ratings of
future data submitted by that contributor.

This might not have to be automated in any way. With a system that
provided for data to be approved by authorised approvers, you could
simply promote contributors to approver status, through some process
amongst the existing approvers.

I know that some biodata management systems, for example ARC's EcoBase,
provide for various levels of approval, as well as tracking of the
approval process right back to the original source.

Amongst others, ARC have experience with community contributed data, and
biodata quality management.

Comments, Mike??

Rest of post

That's a good twist.
The focus is then more likely to be on the data, rather than the
messenger.

The structure I am considering has a "data commons hub" initially in
pilot form in a private area with access controls. Within the hub are
servers for a directory of data sources, a data quality score and
feedback forums. There are also guidelines and commitments for sharing
data and guidelines and commitments for using data.

The actual data is served directly via the internet from each
organisations website as WMS, WFS and/or KML formats. (These formats
serve data as an image (WMS - web map server), individual features (WFS
- web feature server), or Google earth format (KML).) Software to do
this is in open source and relatively cheap.

So technically we could get One-Land up and going reasonably easily.

Rest of post

Hi Jim,

Interesting idea. I don't use TradeMe or Amazon much, but others I have
spoken to thought it could work. Might need everyone to have an alias
so that personal / policital differences do not influence the peer
review?

Rest of post

Hi James,
This seems to be the consensus after many discussion over the last week.
Data from all sources should be accepted as long as the source is known
or declared.

Pushing this a bit further I have mulled on the idea of a data or source
quality score. An example is Trademe or Amazon where the public or
audience rates the quality of the source. This would mean that if say a
community group or individual continually submitted data and built a
record of high "quality" then their next contribution would be taken
with greater credence than say a source with no previous record.

Does this make sense or is their a flaw here?

Rest of post

Hi Jim,

The OSNZ Atlas did pretty fine on the basis of trusting it sources
irrespective of training, and assuming every submitter was acting in the
best interest of the project. It has one "unusual" record in our
Region that I know of, but it is minor in comparison to the value of the
overall work.

I think you can accept data from all sources as long as that source is
known. The BRN works on this principle. Possibly you can have another
field relating to peer review of quality of source - thus attaching a
"quality" tag to the data if there arises a need to harvest a subset of
the data that has a higher standard than the average.

Jim Lambie

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured>
[mailto:<email obscured>] On Behalf Of Jim
McLeod
Sent: Wednesday, 6 August 2008 1:18 p.m.
To: <email obscured>
Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Acceptable data sources

Good afternoon,
I am working up a set of principles for the One-Land database. One issue
is the acceptable source of data that is used for making decisions.

At present there appears to be a lot of angst around the "quality" of
data.

Should we worry about data "quality" or accept all data provided it's
source is revealed?

The extension of this is identification and correction of discrepancies.
Should we restrict these important tasks to peers or should we open the
data to the public and let them do the job for us along the lines of
Wikipedia?

And pushing that idea, how about putting a bounty on the work?

Regards
Jim

[By the way thanks for all the direct responses to my last questions -
but the discussion is more robust if the replies are to the forum.]

**********************************************************************
This email message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and
destroy the original message. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views
of Environment Waikato.
Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email
has been scanned and is free of viruses. However, Environment Waikato
can make no warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free
from viruses.
Visit our website at http://www.ew.govt.nz
**********************************************************************

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/3QWVseZl5nCdp8FfMRF4oO

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:<email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe

Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net
http://onlinegroups.net

Scanned by Bizo Email Filter

Horizons Regional Council | 24 hr freephone 0508 800 800 | www.horizons.govt.nz

This email is covered by the disclaimers which can be found here:
http://www.horizons.govt.nz/default.aspx?pageid=219

In my area of invertebrate herbivore associations knowing the quality of
information is essential and this is clearly indicated in the Plant-SyNZ
database. This would apply equally to the use of the Plant-SyNZ concept
for recognising herbivores on plants in biodiversity surveys
(http://www.crop.cri.nz/home/plant-synz/index.php)

The issue is knowing the quality of the data. Then the user can decide
what use to make of it. Ideally databases should have provision to
indicate this.

Regards Nicholas Martin

>>> "Jim McLeod" <<email obscured>> 06-Aug-08 1:17 p.m. >>>
Good afternoon,
I am working up a set of principles for the One-Land database. One
issue
is the acceptable source of data that is used for making decisions.

At present there appears to be a lot of angst around the "quality" of
data.

Should we worry about data "quality" or accept all data provided it's
source is revealed?

The extension of this is identification and correction of
discrepancies.
Should we restrict these important tasks to peers or should we open
the
data to the public and let them do the job for us along the lines of
Wikipedia?

And pushing that idea, how about putting a bounty on the work?

Regards
Jim

[By the way thanks for all the direct responses to my last questions -
but the discussion is more robust if the replies are to the forum.]

**********************************************************************
This email message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and
destroy the original message. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views
of Environment Waikato.
Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email
has been scanned and is free of viruses. However, Environment Waikato
can make no warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free
from viruses.
Visit our website at http://www.ew.govt.nz
**********************************************************************

Rest of post

Good afternoon,
I am working up a set of principles for the One-Land database. One issue
is the acceptable source of data that is used for making decisions.

At present there appears to be a lot of angst around the "quality" of
data.

Should we worry about data "quality" or accept all data provided it's
source is revealed?

The extension of this is identification and correction of discrepancies.
Should we restrict these important tasks to peers or should we open the
data to the public and let them do the job for us along the lines of
Wikipedia?

And pushing that idea, how about putting a bounty on the work?

Regards
Jim

[By the way thanks for all the direct responses to my last questions -
but the discussion is more robust if the replies are to the forum.]

**********************************************************************
This email message and any attached files may contain confidential information,
and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you have received this
message in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original
message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Environment Waikato.
Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email has been
scanned and is free of viruses. However, Environment Waikato can make no
warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free from viruses.
Visit our website at http://www.ew.govt.nz
**********************************************************************

Hi Derek,
Yes, I am aware of the Waikato LASS, and also the BOP and Horizon
LASS's.

It strikes me that these regional clusters provide a mechanism by which
the councils within those regions can pool resources. Of course the
Auckland Councils also have ALGGi and I think there is a cluster in
Southland.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could get regional clusters working on
projects of specific importance to them but of common application to all
councils in all regions i.e. NZ Inc?

Rest of post

Hi Jim,

As you say, from a biodiversity perspective EW is interested in gaining
easier access to relevant DoC databases. Access to other databases from
other TA's and RC's that are relevant to Significant Natural Areas work
would also be useful.

From a policy and spatial modelling perspective easy access to regularly
updated district plan data from all the TA's would be great. I assume
you have talked to David Pearks about One Land and about the LASS
aspirations that sound a bit similar?

Cheers
Derek

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured>
[mailto:<email obscured>] On Behalf Of Jim
McLeod
Sent: Friday, 1 August 2008 1:36 p.m.
To: <email obscured>
Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Data sharing infrastructure

Good afternoon,

On Thursday 17 April I received a mandate from the collective RCEOs to
represent the Regional Councils (RCs) and Unitary Authorities (UAs) in
spatial data discussions with central government. This is not authority
to commit the RCs and UAs but to represent them.

My angle is that Councils are keen to have a system by which data
associated with land can be gathered together and integrated to provide
as complete a picture as practicable of a region, catchment, community
or property. This is to enable them to improve understanding, knowledge
and decision making that impacts on land, land based activities and
communities and to feed platforms such as Google Maps for public
edification and to help change behaviour.

This interest by the RCEOs has been conveyed to the CEEFs - a CE forum
initiated by MfE where attendees can discuss and plan joint action
around environmentally relevant issues. MAF, DOC and MFE expressed an
interest in the RCEOs initiative.

This has led to discussions with managers and staff across these central
government agencies and within Otago RC, ECAN, Wellington RC, Horizons,
EW, EBOP, ARC and Northland RC. I have also had some meetings with
various commercial parties, the NZ Geospatial Office, SSC, MCDEM, and
MED.

The consensus has been confirmation of interest in sharing and
integrating land data. Based upon this I have explored the technologies
available for doing this and discovered that federated databases
(Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) or Data Commons by other names) are
likely to meet the requirements. I am now looking to establish a pilot
infrastructure and seeking projects interested in sharing data (as well
as some funding ~8-) ). However the key requirement is a mature
community of practice spanning multiple organisations with an interest
in land related data, that can help develop data standards from a
business perspective.

It appears to me that this might apply to the Biodiversity community.

What do you think?

From an EW perspective, I know that there is a wish to quickly and
easily pull DOC spatial data into in-house analysis and presentation
tools. To combine that data with internal data and do projections on
where things are going and what barriers constraints we are likely to
encounter

Do you know of similar or related requirements?

Cheers
Jim
_______________________
Dr Jim McLeod
Regional Data Facilitator
Environment Waikato

Mob: 021 369 813

**********************************************************************
This email message and any attached files may contain confidential
information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you
have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and
destroy the original message. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views
of Environment Waikato. Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to
ensure that its email has been scanned and is free of viruses. However,
Environment Waikato can make no warranty that this email or any
attachments to it are free from viruses. Visit our website at
http://www.ew.govt.nz
**********************************************************************

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/2UvOUPOX97PIDMpaS0gETJ

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:<email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe

Start your own free groups and site with
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net

Good afternoon,

On Thursday 17 April I received a mandate from the collective RCEOs to
represent the Regional Councils (RCs) and Unitary Authorities (UAs) in
spatial data discussions with central government. This is not authority
to commit the RCs and UAs but to represent them.

My angle is that Councils are keen to have a system by which data
associated with land can be gathered together and integrated to provide
as complete a picture as practicable of a region, catchment, community
or property. This is to enable them to improve understanding, knowledge
and decision making that impacts on land, land based activities and
communities and to feed platforms such as Google Maps for public
edification and to help change behaviour.

This interest by the RCEOs has been conveyed to the CEEFs - a CE forum
initiated by MfE where attendees can discuss and plan joint action
around environmentally relevant issues. MAF, DOC and MFE expressed an
interest in the RCEOs initiative.

This has led to discussions with managers and staff across these central
government agencies and within Otago RC, ECAN, Wellington RC, Horizons,
EW, EBOP, ARC and Northland RC. I have also had some meetings with
various commercial parties, the NZ Geospatial Office, SSC, MCDEM, and
MED.

The consensus has been confirmation of interest in sharing and
integrating land data. Based upon this I have explored the technologies
available for doing this and discovered that federated databases
(Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) or Data Commons by other names) are
likely to meet the requirements. I am now looking to establish a pilot
infrastructure and seeking projects interested in sharing data (as well
as some funding ~8-) ). However the key requirement is a mature
community of practice spanning multiple organisations with an interest
in land related data, that can help develop data standards from a
business perspective.

It appears to me that this might apply to the Biodiversity community.

What do you think?

From an EW perspective, I know that there is a wish to quickly and
easily pull DOC spatial data into in-house analysis and presentation
tools. To combine that data with internal data and do projections on
where things are going and what barriers constraints we are likely to
encounter

Do you know of similar or related requirements?

Cheers

Rest of post

Hello, and welcome to all who have joined this group,

Of the 26 people currently here,
http://dataversity.org.nz/groups/dataversity_public_discuss/members
only 18 are core members of Dataversity, so we this is already a group
where inter-sectoral conversations can take place.

If you are a core member of Dataversity, then you have probably already
posted an introduction to the Dataversity Private Discussion group. That
will be visible to the other core members of the group, but not to
everyone in this group. You are welcome to post a separate intro to this
group, but as an alternative I suggest that you visit your bio
(accessible from your profile) and make sure that is up to date.
Profiles are visible to members of this public group who are logged in
to the site.

If you are not a member of the private Dataversity group, and would like
to participate in conversations here, please begin by making a post to
this "topic", introducing yourself. You can do that by logging in to the
website, and then visiting this topic (there's a link to it at the
bottom of the email version of this post). Or you can simply reply to
the email version of this post, leaving the subject line unchanged.

Here is an intro from me, for the purposes of this group. I am Projects
Director of OnlineGroups.Net, a company that provides online
collaboration tools and services. We build the collaboration server
GroupServer
http://groupserver.org
that underpins the Dataversity site, as well as our service at
OnlineGroups.Net
http://onlinegroups.net
where you can start a site and online groups of your own. Our service
underpins many other sites, including an online groups site for Landcare
Research,
http://tiakimatauranga.onlinegroups.co.nz/
and the LG OnlineGroups site
http://groups.localgovt.co.nz/
that we provide for Local Government Online Ltd. We are working with
LGOL on the Dataversity project.

My role here is Facilitator. If this project leads to sustainable
ongoing conversations that lead to better coordination of efforts around
biodata management in local government, I will have done my job.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you have about this group,
or other aspects of Dataversity.

cheers,

Rest of post

This online group is for engagement between local government terrestrial and
freshwater biodiversity data managers, and stakeholders in related sectors.

All of the following are encouraged to join Dataversity Public Discussion, to
build their engagement with local government terrestrial and freshwater biodata
managers.

Curators of the national biodiversity databases.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/

Representatives of groups that are related to Dataversity.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/relatedgroups/

People from environmental consultancies.

Biodiversity policy people in local and central government.

People involved in local government data management in
areas other than terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity,
such as marine biodiversity, biosecurity, hydrology, GIS,
and core systems.

Despite this wide membership, the focus of this group is local government
terrestrial and freshwater biodata management. This group is not intended for
sector-wide conversations about biodiversity or biodata management.

Please use this topic for discussion about the Dataversity Public Discussion
group.

cheers,

Rest of post