Nationally Significant Databases

Our National Databases page boldly states that the databases below are
Nationally Significant Databases, and provides a very brief explanation
of what that means.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/#nsd

Can someone (Isabella?) explain what "Nationally Significant Database"
actually means, and provide us with a complete list of them?

Isabella, at the Dataversity workshop in March,
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/6PACQ4S5nbZIo5o43ixxdv
you mentioned that MoRST is reviewing the Nationally Significant
Databases. Can you give us an update on progress with that?

Also at the March workshop, folks agreed to a discussion to identify
gaps in the Nationally Significant Databases. A complete list of them
would be a good start to this. However, if you have thoughts about gaps
in the list, then please go ahead and let us know.

cheers,

Dan

. . .

Nationally Significant Databases listed on the Dataversity National
Databases page.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/

Cawthron Institute Culture Collection of
Micro-Algae

Land Resource Information System (LRIS)

National Forest Herbarium and Database

National Vegetation Survey Databank (NVS)

New Zealand Arthropod Collection and Specimen
and Information Database

New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database

New Zealand Fungal Herbarium (PDD) and Associated
Database, and the International Collection of
Micro-organisms from Plants (ICMP) and Associated
Databases

New Zealand National Paleontological Collection
and Database

(by association) Nga Tipu Whakaoranga-Ethnobotany
Database

Research Herbarium for Plant Biosystematics

Rest of post

I'll start by putting our hand up for the NZ Biodiversity Recording Network
(www.nzbrn.org.nz) as contender for nationally significant status. this is
because of its current size and coverage (over 1/3 million biodiversity and
biosecurity records after only a couple of years of existence - with prospects
of reaching a half mill in foreseeable future); it is the only publicly
interactive, fully accessible system covering a wide cross-section of natural
history observations and potential applications for science, management and
education and public engagement in natural history recording
cheers
colin m

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Dan Randow
Sent: Wednesday, 22 July 2009 5:16 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

Our National Databases page boldly states that the databases below are
Nationally Significant Databases, and provides a very brief explanation
of what that means.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/#nsd

Can someone (Isabella?) explain what "Nationally Significant Database"
actually means, and provide us with a complete list of them?

Isabella, at the Dataversity workshop in March,
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/6PACQ4S5nbZIo5o43ixxdv
you mentioned that MoRST is reviewing the Nationally Significant
Databases. Can you give us an update on progress with that?

Also at the March workshop, folks agreed to a discussion to identify
gaps in the Nationally Significant Databases. A complete list of them
would be a good start to this. However, if you have thoughts about gaps
in the list, then please go ahead and let us know.

cheers,

Dan

. . .

Nationally Significant Databases listed on the Dataversity National
Databases page.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/

Cawthron Institute Culture Collection of
Micro-Algae

Land Resource Information System (LRIS)

National Forest Herbarium and Database

National Vegetation Survey Databank (NVS)

New Zealand Arthropod Collection and Specimen
and Information Database

New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database

New Zealand Fungal Herbarium (PDD) and Associated
Database, and the International Collection of
Micro-organisms from Plants (ICMP) and Associated
Databases

New Zealand National Paleontological Collection
and Database

(by association) Nga Tipu Whakaoranga-Ethnobotany
Database

Research Herbarium for Plant Biosystematics

--

Dan Randow
Dataversity Facilitator

and Chief Wrangler
OnlineGroups.Net
ph +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928
Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St
PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140
Aotearoa (New Zealand)
http://onlinegroups.net
http://groupserver.org
http://twitter.com/danrandow
Skype: vonrandow

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5nsVzkWEhPzkTM7sZHk8em

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

Hi Colin et al

My understanding is that there is almost no prospect of having any new NZ
database contenders considered for Nationally Significant status. Some years
back MoRST held a workshop on the topic - there was a huge response - standing
room only at the meeting with many of the people there representing databases
that they wanted to be assigned Nationally Significant status. My impression
was that it was such a can of worms that MoRST quickly put the lid back on. If
someone from MoRST can confirm that there is now any serious possibility of new
databases being assigned "Nationally Significant status" then can they let us
know, and advise on their process to manage the stampede!
Cheers
Don R

Rest of post

---------------------------
Dr Don Robertson
Chief Scientist, Biodiversity & Biosecurity
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA)
Private Bag 14-901 Wellington NZ
phone (DD) +644 386 0519
Mobile 027 444 6640
web: http://www.niwa.co.nz

>>> Colin Meurk <<email obscured>> 22/07/2009 6:18 p.m. >>>
I'll start by putting our hand up for the NZ Biodiversity Recording Network
(www.nzbrn.org.nz) as contender for nationally significant status. this is
because of its current size and coverage (over 1/3 million biodiversity and
biosecurity records after only a couple of years of existence - with prospects
of reaching a half mill in foreseeable future); it is the only publicly
interactive, fully accessible system covering a wide cross-section of natural
history observations and potential applications for science, management and
education and public engagement in natural history recording
cheers
colin m

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Dan Randow
Sent: Wednesday, 22 July 2009 5:16 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

Our National Databases page boldly states that the databases below are
Nationally Significant Databases, and provides a very brief explanation
of what that means.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/#nsd

Can someone (Isabella?) explain what "Nationally Significant Database"
actually means, and provide us with a complete list of them?

Isabella, at the Dataversity workshop in March,
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/6PACQ4S5nbZIo5o43ixxdv
you mentioned that MoRST is reviewing the Nationally Significant
Databases. Can you give us an update on progress with that?

Also at the March workshop, folks agreed to a discussion to identify
gaps in the Nationally Significant Databases. A complete list of them
would be a good start to this. However, if you have thoughts about gaps
in the list, then please go ahead and let us know.

cheers,

Dan

. . .

Nationally Significant Databases listed on the Dataversity National
Databases page.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/

Cawthron Institute Culture Collection of
Micro-Algae

Land Resource Information System (LRIS)

National Forest Herbarium and Database

National Vegetation Survey Databank (NVS)

New Zealand Arthropod Collection and Specimen
and Information Database

New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database

New Zealand Fungal Herbarium (PDD) and Associated
Database, and the International Collection of
Micro-organisms from Plants (ICMP) and Associated
Databases

New Zealand National Paleontological Collection
and Database

(by association) Nga Tipu Whakaoranga-Ethnobotany
Database

Research Herbarium for Plant Biosystematics

--

Dan Randow
Dataversity Facilitator

and Chief Wrangler
OnlineGroups.Net
ph +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928
Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St
PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140
Aotearoa (New Zealand)
http://onlinegroups.net
http://groupserver.org
http://twitter.com/danrandow
Skype: vonrandow

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5nsVzkWEhPzkTM7sZHk8em

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5M1CnirmWPwBQ39LINRD0Y

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research Ltd.

Hi Dan

there's a list of nationally Significant Databases & Collections at:

http://natsigdc.landcareresearch.co.nz/natsigdc_list.html

Rest of post

Afternoon, all

I'll load a list of the full 26 - the word document here. The "review" you
mention Dan that I talked about at the workshop in Kilbirnie was the Backbone
process, ie that I posted about in the Collaborative System Development topic
(http://tinyurl.com/nd38ll). There you'll find the gazetted criteria for
things being Nationally Significant and some other general information about
why MoRST started that process.

The process of "Backbonifying" the funding for nationally significant databases
is now completed: the negotiation of contracts has finished and they're signed.
At this stage, all the available money has been invested in the existing
nationally significant databases. So Don you're essentially right - but rather
than being a can of worms that we clamped the lid on, it's (especially in July
2009, post-global-financial-crisis &c) a question of there not being any
additional new funding available to stampede towards.

Nationally Significant Databases and Collections (2009).doc 65.50kb

Sorry for overlooking that, Isabella, and thank you for both your
earlier update and today's. I think my questions are answered.

Thanks for your comments, too, Don and Colin.

I have updated the section on Nationally Significant Databases.
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/#nsd

cheers,

Rest of post

With respect to the NS databases, I have been doing some digging and
thinking around geothermal resource data.
(If you didn't know the geothermal resource (as defined by the Waikato
Regional Policy Statement (that has been thoroughly scrutinised and tested
by the Environment Court)) includes

> *all geothermal water and energy, material containing energy or fluid
> (derived from within the earth) surrounding any geothermal water, all
> surface manifestations of geothermal processes, and all plants, animals,
> micro-organisms and characteristics dependent on geothermal energy. *

And under the RMA geothermal water is:

> *Water heated within the earth by natural phenomena to a temperature of 30
> degrees Celsius or more; and includes all steam, water, and water vapour,
> and every mixture of all or any of them that has been heated by natural
> phenomena.)*

Our motive is twofold. This organisation believes that sustainable
management of geothermal resources requires an understanding of the resource
dynamics. To do this it requires access to appropriate data, and
information that is independent of the geothermal developers, to ensure an
impartial understanding of resource dynamics and response to development.

Secondly, in determining the structure of the regional geothermal policy
through the appeal process, the Environment Court made clear the need for
the regulatory authority to have access to data and to make information
publicly available on a variety of issues associated with large scale use of
geothermal resources, as well as to actively manage the system and
interactions between competing large takes.

For these reasons the regulatory organisation is interested in improving the
management of geothermal data. Some funding and resources will come from the
regional community, some possibly from the national community and from the
resource consent holders. The actual make-up of the funding is yet to be
identified and agreed.

What this does mean is that geothermal needs a data model, data
infrasturcture, data collection methodologies and data that will enable the
above, and because of the nature of the NS databases there will need to be
links to these.

My next step is the engagement of relevant stakeholders to achieve this
objective.

Cheers

Rest of post

Hello all,
Interesting discussion. One critical aspect of any discussion of Nationally
Significant Databases is that the information provided is correct and
up-to-date. Who is responsible for maintaining these lists and ensuring they
are accurate.

I run the group that manages the National Vegetation Survey (NVS) Databank and
the information provided is not particularly helpful in describing the content
of the database (i.e. no mention that it is a database of plot-based vegetation
records) and the contact details are 5+ years out of date. I'm happy to update
this information if the right contact person can be provided to me.

This makes me concerned about the accuracy of the information provided about
the other Nat. Sig. databases.

cheers,
Susan

Rest of post

I need to make a clarification here.

The Dataversity List of "National Databases" at ...

http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/#nsd

... is a list of databases with some national context and content according to
the provider. It is NOT the list of 'The Nationally Significant Databases'
although it does include most of them.

The NSDs are a class of resource so-labelled by the historical accident of
being in existence when DSIR was restructured into the CRIs. They were
considered important enough at the time to be specifically named during the
restructuring exercise with responsibilities for their management and
dissemination built-into the CRI Act.

I assume it is the list in Isabella's Word document in her post - although I
can't seem to download or open that document.

It is the list mentioned by Don Robertson on the website ...
http://natsigdc.landcareresearch.co.nz/natsigdc_list.html

... and I assume it is this list Susan is referring to.

This site is hosted by Landcare Research and managed by Robert Gibb. If you
look at the bottom of the page you will see it was last edited in 2003! It is
out of date in some respects.

At the time we were agitating for some action around the 'Nationally
Significant Databases AND Collections' because they were in dire straits. We
formed a working group that met a couple of times. The membership of that group
were instrumental in kick-starting the 'backbone' policy that eventually led
last year to some additional backbone funding to support the existing NSDs.
Thank you MoRST for the stamina to see it through.

Yes it took 5 years!

And the story isn't over yet - including the assessment of what is, should, or
should not be a Nationally Significant Database AND Collection.
I stress the AND in 'Databases AND Collections' because we include important
physical collections that may or may not be digitised in some form.

That NatSigDC interest group and website were useful at the time in 2003. Maybe
it is time to retire it, or replace it.

Jerry Cooper
Landcare Research

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

Thanks for that explanation, Jerry.

> I assume it is the list in Isabella's Word document in her post - although I
can't seem to download or open that document.

Here is a PDF version of the document posted by Isabella,
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/3IRIxeyzqgWPgA8xS6V6ls
but this has only a very brief description of the databases, and lists
no contact person.

I do not know who, if anyone, is responsible for maintaining a list of
the Nationally Significant Databases and Collections.

Is there a need for such a list to be maintained, and publicly available?

(By the way, as Jerry says, our National Databases page
http://dataversity.org.nz/resources/nationaldatabases/
is a separate list. Please do let me know if that needs updating!)

Rest of post

Nationally Significant Databases and Collections (2009).doc 35.58kb

Dear dataversity colleagues

There are by my count 11 of the 25 listed databases of "national
significance" in FRST funding terms, that are not biodatabases, within
earth sciences, that variously interconnect with those that are
biodatabases, meaning that "national significance" is an issue
transcending dataversity.

Noting the interim goal of dataversity as improved biodiversity
management a la NZBS, rather than biodata management per se (an end -
mean distinction) I draw the national significance question back to the
wider questions of:

o by what set of criteria with relevance and probative value
should the question of nationally significant biodatabases be resolved
(beyond the present MRST - FRST implications, since this influence on
the data management systems for the 25 or so can change)?

o what does this resolution mean for the context and content of
any successful biodatabase, and for its linkages with other biodatabases
not so successful, on goingly (in the future)?

o understanding the macrocontext of all biodatabases, both
nationally significant and others, within the biodiversity research -
management spectrum - this includes:

* Priority-setting to enhance high order values across all
biodatabases, such as accessibility, interoperability, and metadata
management model specification (by this I mean specifications of system
model for the data; data management system (including scale of effort,
institutional form, influences on data management and capacity
opportunities); data creation routines and standards; and data content)

* Opportunities to enhance key biodatabases and their networks,
of particular value to activities within the research - management
spectrum (eg. threatened environments classification and local
biodiversity information systems) and the potential of certain
nationally significant biodatabases (including some that may not be so
at present).

These are grist for the developing project plan for dataversity but they
also cause us all to reflect on the marginal values we derive from the
"nationally significant" biodatabases from our various work, and those
derivable from any changes to those databases. I know that over
professional lifespans of 40 years, notions of at least the system model
for the biodataset have changed (in my own case) and will continue to do
so, thus influencing all other metadata management.

Rest of post

I guess a critical matter is to get some agreement on what the various niches
are and who is filling them, standardise across and stick with it. I know that
with the apparent ease of every man and his dog being able to set up their own
web-based, visual db the funding pool is in danger of getting very crowded. on
the one hand we have to prevent reinventing the wheel while on the other avoid
stifling innovation (and dare I say competition). I can see that for the likes
of NZBRN the other danger for our independent existence in lil ol new zild is
the large, well-funded international sharks patrolling these waters looking for
opportunities to expand. maybe it doesn't matter, and is a little old
fashioned to hobble along in an amateurish, no 8 wire sort of way when we could
have all the benefits of overseas investment. isn't that the name of the game
at present? is one of the goals of dataversity to reach some agreement on
which tools provide the services best and fill all the niches and then ensure
that funding agencies (or joint local govt funding) is secured for that set of
providers? is this going to create a big fight? there will be some overlap
now; do we try to reach some consensus on this
cheers

Rest of post

From my perspective (working in a regional council and having filled a range
of roles/positions) I would like access to trusted data that lets me
understand the past, the present and the possible future situations. I would
like to test these interpretations through robust discussions with others so
that I can have confidence in the recommendations I am required to make.

This has been the situation from before computers (not necessarily the
existence of regional councils, but the work requirements ~8-) ).
When we got PC's we started with spreadsheets and local data structures, so
the situation is not new. What the Web has brought is the ability to
collect, integrate, analysis and present vastly greater volumes of data.

I still need robust discussion of interpretations and that is what I
(naively?) seek from CRI's and other research organisations.
What I don't need is multiple variants of the same data, most of which I
can't trust, I can't access, I can't integrate, can't analysis etc without
large amounts of preprocessing if at all.

I think a (but not the only) solution is a federated data infrastructure.
However, though these are technically possible and appear relatively cheap
they appear to require some central directive to get them going and provide
core funding. It doesn't help to have CRI's or other research organisations
competing to manage data. Nor does it help to have 15 or 85 councils all
doing their own thing.

And there continues to be the tension (within teams, programmes,
organisations, governments etc) between the administration of the data and
the analysis of the data. Administration to check-the-box and analysis to
help understand and make decisions.

The international sharks provide an opportunity to automate tasks that are
repetitive or duplicated, a lot of the IT administration for example.
What they can't provide is the "local" specialist knowledge. And this
knowledge invariably comes with its own analysis tools and techniques, hence
the competitive interpretations and innovative recommendations.

(Who is that for an early morning speel!)
Jim

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Colin Meurk

Rest of post

<<email obscured>>wrote:

> I guess a critical matter is to get some agreement on what the various
> niches are and who is filling them, standardise across and stick with it. I
> know that with the apparent ease of every man and his dog being able to set
> up their own web-based, visual db the funding pool is in danger of getting
> very crowded. on the one hand we have to prevent reinventing the wheel while
> on the other avoid stifling innovation (and dare I say competition). I can
> see that for the likes of NZBRN the other danger for our independent
> existence in lil ol new zild is the large, well-funded international sharks
> patrolling these waters looking for opportunities to expand. maybe it
> doesn't matter, and is a little old fashioned to hobble along in an
> amateurish, no 8 wire sort of way when we could have all the benefits of
> overseas investment. isn't that the name of the game at present? is one of
> the goals of dataversity to reach some agreement on which tools provide the
> services best and fill all the
> niches and then ensure that funding agencies (or joint local govt funding)
> is secured for that set of providers? is this going to create a big fight?
> there will be some overlap now; do we try to reach some consensus on this
> cheers
> c
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz [mailto:
> dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Steve Markham
> Sent: Monday, 27 July 2009 3:58 p.m.
> To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] nationally significant
> databases
>
> Dear dataversity colleagues
>
>
>
> There are by my count 11 of the 25 listed databases of "national
> significance" in FRST funding terms, that are not biodatabases, within
> earth sciences, that variously interconnect with those that are
> biodatabases, meaning that "national significance" is an issue
> transcending dataversity.
>
>
>
> Noting the interim goal of dataversity as improved biodiversity
> management a la NZBS, rather than biodata management per se (an end -
> mean distinction) I draw the national significance question back to the
> wider questions of:
>
> o by what set of criteria with relevance and probative value
> should the question of nationally significant biodatabases be resolved
> (beyond the present MRST - FRST implications, since this influence on
> the data management systems for the 25 or so can change)?
>
> o what does this resolution mean for the context and content of
> any successful biodatabase, and for its linkages with other biodatabases
> not so successful, on goingly (in the future)?
>
> o understanding the macrocontext of all biodatabases, both
> nationally significant and others, within the biodiversity research -
> management spectrum - this includes:
>
> * Priority-setting to enhance high order values across all
> biodatabases, such as accessibility, interoperability, and metadata
> management model specification (by this I mean specifications of system
> model for the data; data management system (including scale of effort,
> institutional form, influences on data management and capacity
> opportunities); data creation routines and standards; and data content)
>
> * Opportunities to enhance key biodatabases and their networks,
> of particular value to activities within the research - management
> spectrum (eg. threatened environments classification and local
> biodiversity information systems) and the potential of certain
> nationally significant biodatabases (including some that may not be so
> at present).
>
>
>
> These are grist for the developing project plan for dataversity but they
> also cause us all to reflect on the marginal values we derive from the
> "nationally significant" biodatabases from our various work, and those
> derivable from any changes to those databases. I know that over
> professional lifespans of 40 years, notions of at least the system model
> for the biodataset have changed (in my own case) and will continue to do
> so, thus influencing all other metadata management.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve Markham
> Manager Policy
> Tasman District Council
> Private Bag 4
> Richmond 7050
> New Zealand
>
> Phone (direct) 0 64 03 543 8427
> Fax 0 64 03 543 9524
> Mobile 0 64 027 6009780
> E-mail <email obscured>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail message and any attached files may contain confidential
> information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please delete. Any views expressed in this
> message are not necessarily the official view of Tasman District Council.
> For more information about Tasman District Council, please visit our
> website at http://www.tasman.govt.nz
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4FNuqSMtCGKhyggzVBJQfC
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/7bUczQHu3MTawwB39Om4xZ
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

Colin and Steve have both touched on the relationship between the goals of
Dataversity and this conversation about NSDs. I'll clarify, from my point of
view.

As Steve suggests, Dataversity is one of a number of
information-systems-related (TFBIS) projects that contribute to the
Biodiversity Strategy.

The logic goes something like this…

Improve biodiversity management (NZBS).

Improve biodata management (TFBIS).

Provide opportunities for
participants to cost-effectively
improve their own biodata
management (Dataversity).

Increased adoption of standards
and best practices.

Increased use of national
databases.

Adoption of ideas, solutions or
tools sourced from other local
government agencies.

Cooperation to develop new systems.

As part of increasing use of national databases, as Colin suggests, yes let's
discuss which tools meet local government needs the best, and where the gaps
are. What actually gets done about those gaps is up to you stewards of the
national databases, and you stewards of the funding for those. Which is why we
invite you to join our conversations.

Rest of post

thx dan
I guess my point is that soon someone has to take a step beyond the
'conversation', otherwise we continue to float, rudderless around the
shark-infested waters (to reuse the metaphor). we have a list of (significant)
databases and webtools (altho it's now buried out of sight for me). can
'someone' provide a list of the capabilities of existing resources in one
sentence each (e.g. NZBRN provides biodiversity and biosecurity lists (as
spreadsheets) and species distribution maps from data outside institutional
dbs, and can receive/store natural history observations online); and then a
draft list of perceived gaps. [I know that was a long sentence, and still
didn't cover the services it might provide!]

this should immediately bring managers of existing systems out of the woodwork
to defend their respective 'empires' - so that iteratively a more realistic
list of 'gaps' and perhaps 'overlaps' will emerge. I know this is at a
different scale to integrating it all, but is not defining the existing
resource (beyond just a name) and gaps a prerequisite? maybe out of my depth
in this ocean. apologies. we could have several languages going here. I also
realise people are joining the conversation at different stages.
cheers
colin

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of
<email obscured>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 2009 3:27 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

Colin and Steve have both touched on the relationship between the goals of
Dataversity and this conversation about NSDs. I'll clarify, from my point of
view.

As Steve suggests, Dataversity is one of a number of
information-systems-related (TFBIS) projects that contribute to the
Biodiversity Strategy.

The logic goes something like this…

Improve biodiversity management (NZBS).

Improve biodata management (TFBIS).

Provide opportunities for
participants to cost-effectively
improve their own biodata
management (Dataversity).

Increased adoption of standards
and best practices.

Increased use of national
databases.

Adoption of ideas, solutions or
tools sourced from other local
government agencies.

Cooperation to develop new systems.

As part of increasing use of national databases, as Colin suggests, yes let's
discuss which tools meet local government needs the best, and where the gaps
are. What actually gets done about those gaps is up to you stewards of the
national databases, and you stewards of the funding for those. Which is why we
invite you to join our conversations.

Dan

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/2e8dRIx6geWKbBaBaA064O

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

The TFBIS Programme Strategy which is accessible at
http://www.biodiversity.govt.nz/pdfs/TIFBIS-strategy.pdf
has as one of it's principle goals to assist in the development of a robust
infrastructure to support interoperabilty, interconnection and sharing of
biodiversity data and information.
Privacy, data access, IP policies and frameworks, and standards which have been
focus for recent discussion all fall within the Action Areas for this Goal.
The TFBIS Steering Group will be meeting later this year to discuss a possible
call for applications in March 2010. There is however the opportunity for
potential scoping projects to be considered by the Steering Group outside of
the regular funding invitation cycle. If there are clear issues needing
investigation/clarification that can be "crystalised" into a project scoping
exercise these can always be discussed with me in the first instance. If they
are considered consistent with the strategy priorities they can be referred to
the Steering Group for comment with the possibility of a subsequent funding
application being made to address the issue
Alan

Do the NSD's have individual performance criteria beyond the general ones
mentioned by Isabella in her description of the Backbone Scheme?

A quick peek at the NSD list suggests that it could be split into; archives,
references and potentially dynamic databases. The dynamic ones should arguably
be in a continuous update mode. For example NZ Freshwater Fish DB, the NGMP and
the Water Resources Archive.

In a quick kind of "kick the tires" exercise, I have found some common issues
related to some of the DBs, including:

a) the NSD data is incomplete
b) Councils don't supply "their" data to these NSDs
c) Councils can't get data out of the NSDs
d) Consultants want the whole NSDs
e) Consultants don't put their data in the NSDs
f) data supplies provide data in a mishmash of formats, structures, integrity,
methodologies which are a huge pain and cost to getting the data integrated and
loaded into the NSD
g) a unique data source can have multiple names and be replicated within the
NSD

Some understanding and involvement by the Councils in the setting of the KPIs
for the relevant individual NSDs, might help alleviate some of these issues.

Jim

Within our organisation we are in the process of deciding on tools and
applications to help with fisheries, groundwater and geothermal management.
We are very interested in working with others in these areas.

Of special interest to us are; the NZ Freshwater Fish DB in association with
EcoBase, the National Groundwater Monitoring Programme and Water Resources
Archive in association with Geo-Hydro Analyst and the Nat Veg Survey DBs, as
well as the whole range of data required for management of the geothermal
resource.

After some internal and external discussion we have recently bounced around
the following concept of a National Environmental Database (NEDB):

1. The NEDB is hosted by a specialist hosting service (and is mirrored)
2. There is controlled (create, read, update & delete) access to the
different data within the NEDB
3. Data is made available via Creative Commons License unless there are
good reasons not too.
4. NEDB is available 24 x 7 via the Web (The DB is treated as a
production environment, that is there are strict controls on down-time and
changes.)
5. "Standardised" XML schema's for the exchange of data to and from the
NEDB
6. The XML schema's for the different sub-environments are "owned" by the
different communities of knowledge or practice
7. No data is accepted into the NEDB unless it has appropriate metadata,
including a quality statement and clear location/address data.
8. The NEDB contains the authoritative (or master version) of a dataset.
9. Resource Consents (RC) include conditions that require any
environmental data requested is lodged in the NEDB.
10. Lodgement of the RC environmental data is notified to the appropriate
authorities.
11. Council data and information contracts include the requirement to
lodge environmental data in the NEDB
12. Council data administrators have the access rights that enable them
to effectively and efficiently carry out their duties including the
management of access rights to "their" organisations' data.
13. National level data custodians for the data associated with each
community monitor and report on the consistency of that communities data

These ideas have come from:

1. Concerns that when Councils provide data to NSDs or other agencies
they find it very hard to get data back.
2. NSDs are not current and are of mixed quality
3. Much environmental data that is collected, is stored without adequate
metadata.
4. Much environmental data is lost once a publication or decision has
been made
5. Much environmental data is gathered for Resource Consents, but then is
unable to be (or difficult to) reused as it is only reported/provided in
pdfs or on paper.
6. Many analysis applications have proprietary data-structures making it
inconvenient or difficult to share, exchange, collate and/or compare the
data
7. The belief that data should be held separate to the analytical tools.
(Though these tools are fed from an external master data source.)
8. The use of a range of analytical and presentation tools improves the
interpretation and understanding of the data.
9. Just-in-time, standardised and up-to-date environmental data enables
evidence-based decision making.
10. National and regional SOEs could be effectively and efficiently
generated from an NEDB.
11. Many eyes / heads looking at the data help find discrepancies and
create confidence in the data.
12. The IT sections in many Councils find it difficult to get the time
and resources to engage effectively with RMA data. They are mainly focused
on Local Government Act related functions.

The NEDB could contain some National Significant DBs.

As mentioned we are very keen to get discussions going around the data areas
mentioned above.

If interested please contact me.

Rest of post

jim - nzbrn has had some discussions with don robertson of niwa regarding a
joint bid to tfbis to set up a fw biodiversity portal. we were informed earlier
in the year that tfbis was possibly going to invest in the fw area. don't know
if this is still the case or when the next round is likely to get under way.
cheers

Rest of post

Hi Colin,I have been party to a conversation between David Rowe and Don
Robertson about an intent to adapt/modify the current national freshwater
fish database and reference to a draft document about this. We are
interested in progressing this with them and the linking into the NZBRN. As
mentioned, what we are seeking in is how to get "trusted" data to our
scientists and analysts to enable them to make recommendations based upon
evidence. Presently, getting this data together and pre-processing it so
that we can have confidence in it it is a major pain.

Our fresh water people have worked extensively with other Councils to get
agreement on methodologies, and they are now seeking a database to hold
these data and the analytical tools. They also see merit in getting resource
consent conditions and data collection contracts requiring the lodgement of
these data in a "national database" rather than holding them in local
databases that get orphaned.

I can certainly see merits in linking the NZBRN and the NZFFDB. What I
believe we need is an agreed "standardised" data exchange format so that we
can set up our analysis tools to download collated data from a trusted
source.

Jim

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Colin Meurk

Rest of post

I'd much prefer to see the emergence of a 'National Environmental Database
NETWORK'.

I wouldn't want to see another single national database which will overlap in
coverage and intent with existing databses. That would be a social and
technological step backwards in my opinion.

What we actually need are the appropriate data capture/management tools that
can be devolved to whatever level necessary. Some agencies may wish to use them
in-house and manage their own data internally, others may wish somebody else to
manage the system on their behalf. They may catually be a suite of different
systems satisfying different purposes. Whatever the topology, the crucial
aspect is that these separate systems use the same standards and can 'talk to
each other'. In that way we can build a network that connects together these
database and which can be used to harvest local data to deliver a regional or
national picture when that is required, for example for national reporting
requirements.

Please, please not another 'national databases' unless there are very good
reasons for doing so - and I don't see a good reason here.
Convince me otherwise!

Jerry

Rest of post

Well done Jerry!I certainly agree to the network - in fact I prefer the
federated database (as mentioned previously). In reality the data will most
likely be distributed and replicated (NOT duplicated - the copies must be
exact replicas otherwise we face version problems).

But my point is that it should *appear* as though there is a "single"
Environmental Database when I am using my preferred application for analysis
etc.

Yes ideally we all hold and maintain our own data. In practice, my
experience has been that parties hold and maintain "their" data and forget
about everyone else until they require this data also. This is especially
the case of many researchers. As for organisations, they appear to put far
more value on, and effort into, their financial and administrative data than
they put into environmental data. Hence the abysmal state of some of the
NSDs. ~8-)

So to get beyond this block I am suggesting that environmental data be
hosted and curated by third parties, but nurtured and maintained by the data
"owner"s administrator. This can be given effect via Resource Consent
Conditions and via specific data management conditions in contracts. However
to achieve this I need some agreed data exchange standards. (Effectively
what you are also suggesting.)

At present, the environmental data comes in all kinds of formats from paper
to pdf's and proprietary formats. If I can't get some exchange standards
agreed by various "communities of interest" within the next 4 months or so
then I will probably make an initial best guess at a "version 1.0" based
upon overseas examples and write those into the Resource Consents and
Contracts.

I am intending to start this "little" exercise in September.

Jim

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Jerry Cooper <<email obscured>

Rest of post

> wrote:

> I'd much prefer to see the emergence of a 'National Environmental Database
> NETWORK'.
>
> I wouldn't want to see another single national database which will overlap
> in coverage and intent with existing databses. That would be a social and
> technological step backwards in my opinion.
>
> What we actually need are the appropriate data capture/management tools
> that can be devolved to whatever level necessary. Some agencies may wish to
> use them in-house and manage their own data internally, others may wish
> somebody else to manage the system on their behalf. They may catually be a
> suite of different systems satisfying different purposes. Whatever the
> topology, the crucial aspect is that these separate systems use the same
> standards and can 'talk to each other'. In that way we can build a network
> that connects together these database and which can be used to harvest local
> data to deliver a regional or national picture when that is required, for
> example for national reporting requirements.
>
> Please, please not another 'national databases' unless there are very good
> reasons for doing so - and I don't see a good reason here.
> Convince me otherwise!
>
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz [mailto:
> dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim McLeod
> Sent: Monday, 3 August 2009 4:14 p.m.
> To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
> Databases
>
> Within our organisation we are in the process of deciding on tools and
> applications to help with fisheries, groundwater and geothermal management.
> We are very interested in working with others in these areas.
>
> Of special interest to us are; the NZ Freshwater Fish DB in association
> with
> EcoBase, the National Groundwater Monitoring Programme and Water Resources
> Archive in association with Geo-Hydro Analyst and the Nat Veg Survey DBs,
> as
> well as the whole range of data required for management of the geothermal
> resource.
>
> After some internal and external discussion we have recently bounced around
> the following concept of a National Environmental Database (NEDB):
>
> 1. The NEDB is hosted by a specialist hosting service (and is mirrored)
> 2. There is controlled (create, read, update & delete) access to the
> different data within the NEDB
> 3. Data is made available via Creative Commons License unless there are
> good reasons not too.
> 4. NEDB is available 24 x 7 via the Web (The DB is treated as a
> production environment, that is there are strict controls on down-time
> and
> changes.)
> 5. "Standardised" XML schema's for the exchange of data to and from the
> NEDB
> 6. The XML schema's for the different sub-environments are "owned" by the
> different communities of knowledge or practice
> 7. No data is accepted into the NEDB unless it has appropriate metadata,
> including a quality statement and clear location/address data.
> 8. The NEDB contains the authoritative (or master version) of a dataset.
> 9. Resource Consents (RC) include conditions that require any
> environmental data requested is lodged in the NEDB.
> 10. Lodgement of the RC environmental data is notified to the
> appropriate
> authorities.
> 11. Council data and information contracts include the requirement to
> lodge environmental data in the NEDB
> 12. Council data administrators have the access rights that enable them
> to effectively and efficiently carry out their duties including the
> management of access rights to "their" organisations' data.
> 13. National level data custodians for the data associated with each
> community monitor and report on the consistency of that communities data
>
> These ideas have come from:
>
> 1. Concerns that when Councils provide data to NSDs or other agencies
> they find it very hard to get data back.
> 2. NSDs are not current and are of mixed quality
> 3. Much environmental data that is collected, is stored without adequate
> metadata.
> 4. Much environmental data is lost once a publication or decision has
> been made
> 5. Much environmental data is gathered for Resource Consents, but then is
> unable to be (or difficult to) reused as it is only reported/provided in
> pdfs or on paper.
> 6. Many analysis applications have proprietary data-structures making it
> inconvenient or difficult to share, exchange, collate and/or compare the
> data
> 7. The belief that data should be held separate to the analytical tools.
> (Though these tools are fed from an external master data source.)
> 8. The use of a range of analytical and presentation tools improves the
> interpretation and understanding of the data.
> 9. Just-in-time, standardised and up-to-date environmental data enables
> evidence-based decision making.
> 10. National and regional SOEs could be effectively and efficiently
> generated from an NEDB.
> 11. Many eyes / heads looking at the data help find discrepancies and
> create confidence in the data.
> 12. The IT sections in many Councils find it difficult to get the time
> and resources to engage effectively with RMA data. They are mainly
> focused
> on Local Government Act related functions.
>
> The NEDB could contain some National Significant DBs.
>
> As mentioned we are very keen to get discussions going around the data
> areas
> mentioned above.
>
> If interested please contact me.
>
> Jim
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5HMc7NDMd5D82um3QWnZ2h
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/2JxJqKnuSABLOUK3AJVeuu
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

Jim,
sorry but I disagree on your advocacy for 'hosting by third parties' unless
that is absolutely necessary.

The data needs to be as close (physically, technically, operationally) the data
producer/consumer as you can get. They need to feel personal/team/corporate
ownership.
The question of providing 'their' data to everybody else, and having them
having accees to (and not necessarily replicating) everybody else's data,
requires the usual mixture of sticks and carrots. The sticks may be regulatory,
the carrots are the new decision support systems, modelling environments,
analysis and visualisation tools that add value. End users can only get that
value when they become part of the network.

I am old enough to remember the extremely 'bad old days' of mainframe systems
and centralised data centres. They were too expensive and divorced from the
end-users. I made a good living as a consultant for a couple of years in the
marketing/advertising industry downsizing mainframe database systems into the
predecessors of Microsoft Access on brand managers laptops. I really enjoyed
seeing personal productivity of end users go up - and data centre staff put out
to grass!

So I see the 'unblocker' as demonstrating benefit by formulating standards and
adding some value in a federated network approach. Not building a new
generation of replicated data centres. Leave that to Google.

Jerry

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim McLeod
Sent: Tuesday, 4 August 2009 10:03 a.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

Well done Jerry!I certainly agree to the network - in fact I prefer the
federated database (as mentioned previously). In reality the data will most
likely be distributed and replicated (NOT duplicated - the copies must be
exact replicas otherwise we face version problems).

But my point is that it should *appear* as though there is a "single"
Environmental Database when I am using my preferred application for analysis
etc.

Yes ideally we all hold and maintain our own data. In practice, my
experience has been that parties hold and maintain "their" data and forget
about everyone else until they require this data also. This is especially
the case of many researchers. As for organisations, they appear to put far
more value on, and effort into, their financial and administrative data than
they put into environmental data. Hence the abysmal state of some of the
NSDs. ~8-)

So to get beyond this block I am suggesting that environmental data be
hosted and curated by third parties, but nurtured and maintained by the data
"owner"s administrator. This can be given effect via Resource Consent
Conditions and via specific data management conditions in contracts. However
to achieve this I need some agreed data exchange standards. (Effectively
what you are also suggesting.)

At present, the environmental data comes in all kinds of formats from paper
to pdf's and proprietary formats. If I can't get some exchange standards
agreed by various "communities of interest" within the next 4 months or so
then I will probably make an initial best guess at a "version 1.0" based
upon overseas examples and write those into the Resource Consents and
Contracts.

I am intending to start this "little" exercise in September.

Jim

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Jerry Cooper <<email obscured>
> wrote:

> I'd much prefer to see the emergence of a 'National Environmental Database
> NETWORK'.
>
> I wouldn't want to see another single national database which will overlap
> in coverage and intent with existing databses. That would be a social and
> technological step backwards in my opinion.
>
> What we actually need are the appropriate data capture/management tools
> that can be devolved to whatever level necessary. Some agencies may wish to
> use them in-house and manage their own data internally, others may wish
> somebody else to manage the system on their behalf. They may catually be a
> suite of different systems satisfying different purposes. Whatever the
> topology, the crucial aspect is that these separate systems use the same
> standards and can 'talk to each other'. In that way we can build a network
> that connects together these database and which can be used to harvest local
> data to deliver a regional or national picture when that is required, for
> example for national reporting requirements.
>
> Please, please not another 'national databases' unless there are very good
> reasons for doing so - and I don't see a good reason here.
> Convince me otherwise!
>
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz [mailto:
> dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim McLeod
> Sent: Monday, 3 August 2009 4:14 p.m.
> To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
> Databases
>
> Within our organisation we are in the process of deciding on tools and
> applications to help with fisheries, groundwater and geothermal management.
> We are very interested in working with others in these areas.
>
> Of special interest to us are; the NZ Freshwater Fish DB in association
> with
> EcoBase, the National Groundwater Monitoring Programme and Water Resources
> Archive in association with Geo-Hydro Analyst and the Nat Veg Survey DBs,
> as
> well as the whole range of data required for management of the geothermal
> resource.
>
> After some internal and external discussion we have recently bounced around
> the following concept of a National Environmental Database (NEDB):
>
> 1. The NEDB is hosted by a specialist hosting service (and is mirrored)
> 2. There is controlled (create, read, update & delete) access to the
> different data within the NEDB
> 3. Data is made available via Creative Commons License unless there are
> good reasons not too.
> 4. NEDB is available 24 x 7 via the Web (The DB is treated as a
> production environment, that is there are strict controls on down-time
> and
> changes.)
> 5. "Standardised" XML schema's for the exchange of data to and from the
> NEDB
> 6. The XML schema's for the different sub-environments are "owned" by the
> different communities of knowledge or practice
> 7. No data is accepted into the NEDB unless it has appropriate metadata,
> including a quality statement and clear location/address data.
> 8. The NEDB contains the authoritative (or master version) of a dataset.
> 9. Resource Consents (RC) include conditions that require any
> environmental data requested is lodged in the NEDB.
> 10. Lodgement of the RC environmental data is notified to the
> appropriate
> authorities.
> 11. Council data and information contracts include the requirement to
> lodge environmental data in the NEDB
> 12. Council data administrators have the access rights that enable them
> to effectively and efficiently carry out their duties including the
> management of access rights to "their" organisations' data.
> 13. National level data custodians for the data associated with each
> community monitor and report on the consistency of that communities data
>
> These ideas have come from:
>
> 1. Concerns that when Councils provide data to NSDs or other agencies
> they find it very hard to get data back.
> 2. NSDs are not current and are of mixed quality
> 3. Much environmental data that is collected, is stored without adequate
> metadata.
> 4. Much environmental data is lost once a publication or decision has
> been made
> 5. Much environmental data is gathered for Resource Consents, but then is
> unable to be (or difficult to) reused as it is only reported/provided in
> pdfs or on paper.
> 6. Many analysis applications have proprietary data-structures making it
> inconvenient or difficult to share, exchange, collate and/or compare the
> data
> 7. The belief that data should be held separate to the analytical tools.
> (Though these tools are fed from an external master data source.)
> 8. The use of a range of analytical and presentation tools improves the
> interpretation and understanding of the data.
> 9. Just-in-time, standardised and up-to-date environmental data enables
> evidence-based decision making.
> 10. National and regional SOEs could be effectively and efficiently
> generated from an NEDB.
> 11. Many eyes / heads looking at the data help find discrepancies and
> create confidence in the data.
> 12. The IT sections in many Councils find it difficult to get the time
> and resources to engage effectively with RMA data. They are mainly
> focused
> on Local Government Act related functions.
>
> The NEDB could contain some National Significant DBs.
>
> As mentioned we are very keen to get discussions going around the data
> areas
> mentioned above.
>
> If interested please contact me.
>
> Jim
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5HMc7NDMd5D82um3QWnZ2h
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/2JxJqKnuSABLOUK3AJVeuu
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

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

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

Thanks for the response.
So you want the data close to the data producer or the data consumers? This
is the challenge. Do we have the data vested with:

1. the data collector,
2. the party purchasing the data "the owner",
3. the party analysing the data, the researcher/analyst,
4. the regulatory authority, or
5. the data consumer

I have asked them all and they say "yes, I am the one". ~8-)

Bear in mind that it is unlikely that any of the above specialist parties
has a "production level" environment available 24 x 7. By this I mean they
run 3 separate instances of the database. A development instance for
changing data structures, a test instance for practising running the
production instance and for backup to the production, and the
live/production environment. (Our medium size organisation runs these three
instances for financial and administration applications, but not for our
environmental data.)

End users get immediate value when they get data from others, not when they
make their data available. We know that standing data up is not easy or
cheap, and is far more expensive that pulling others data down. This is
exactly the situation we face at the moment - very few parties are putting
their data up. Instead we informally swap CDs, a far cheaper option. However
this doesn't help the NSD's or integrated environmental management.

Did I advocate building a mainframe system and centralised data centre? If
so then I apologise, that isn't what I intended. Instead I suggest using
existing commercial services, yes like the Googles and Amazons.

The PC/laptop may have enabled individual productivity, but it also
seriously crippled valuable community datasets. How many of us can find data
from two or more years ago that have been stored and manipulated on PCs?

I do agree the data does have to be owned and nurtured but that doesn't mean
it has to reside physically, technically or operationally close to the
"owner".

Rest of post

Jim,

As a general rule keep data close to the collectors and the owners.

Of course this depends on what kind of data you are talking about, the scale
of data, and what purpose it is being used for, and by who.
Some operations will be mission critical and require 24X7 and 3 instances, but
many may not. One shoe does not fit all.

For example, I can predict (but can't prove) that many of the 177 million
biodiversity records available through the GBIF federated network of 7,472
datasets originated from databases and spreadhseets on individual PCs.
Much of that data will continue to exist long after GBIF has gone - because, if
it serves a purpose for the owners, they will look after it and make sure it
migrates across instance of software/hardware platform and data sharing
networks.

My personal bio-database of 10,000 fungal occurrence records associated with
15,000 images and specimens from Europe and New Zealand has migrated in that
way across 25 years, and dozens of my own software and hardware platforms. I
share that data with national and global systems. I do that for two reasons: 1)
in the event of catastrophic system loss I can retrieve it and rebuild my
database; 2) I can use the nice tools that GBIF give me, like combining that
data with others, using an ecological niche model to look at predicted
distributions, generate maps, KML files for Google Earth etc. The data stays
with me and is best managed by me because I am the creator and prime user.

But I can see that scenario clearly doesn't apply in in same way to large
spatial datasets.

It also doesn't apply to Nat Sig databases like NVS where we (Landcare) are the
custodians for data provided by ourselves and others. We have a duty of care
with respect to those data. We manage them as corporate assets on corporate
platforms with all the technology and personnel they need and we can afford. We
don't guarentee 24 x 7 - but I doubt that is a real requirement for a system
such as NVS.

But generally I think we will have to agree to disagree on our philsophical
perspectives. Neither is right or wrong. They are equally applicable in
different situations.

Jerry

Rest of post

The opensource community is all over this like a rash. And when those guys move
you can't see for the smoke - have a look at Nat "opengovt.org" Torkington's
wiki here: http://opengovt.wikia.com/wiki/Open_Data and here for their general
raison d'etre http://opengovt.wikia.com/wiki/NZ_Open_Government_Wiki . Sounds
like they need your ideas...

I must admit that at the moment I am switching between this conversation and
vetting a rather large Resource Consent and an Annual Report of Operations
required by previous related consents. The report is in Word format (which
is unusual as they are normally in pdf - but this may be because it is a
draft). The reports are loaded with plots and numerous maps, but no actual
digital data. They cover many areas including indigenous organisms and
ecosystems. It also refers to much data collected, and many reports created,
by reputable consultants - but no actual digital data is provided.
There is also mention of a couple of unfortunate situations where bulldozers
have inadvertently destroyed some of these ecosystems - "no one knew about
them - that they were so important".

It struck me that a big step forward would be access to the actual data and
the mandatory vesting of these data somewhere conveniently accessible to
project managers and other accountable people, as well as the regulatory
authorities and where appropriate the general public for their edification.

Obviously many of the maps would be of more value in some spatial data
visualisation system enabling interactivet zooming and overlaying rather
then the brain warping flicking between pages I am presently engaged in.

The locations, extents, photos, and descriptions of the organisms and
ecosystems seemed the logical data to vest in the NVS. The groundwater
information could be required to enter the NGMP and the surface water data
the WRA.

However the overhead of getting the consent applicants to do this and the
additional effort of pulling it all back together in some sort of analytical
desktop tool suggest that I might be better of doing a "local" solution as
you suggest. And as the consent applicant points out it is all available in
the pdfs.

Bear in mind that this is how many Councils get most of "their"
environmental data; connected to consents, in pdfs or on paper.

Rest of post

We are returning to the point that your database should ideally have a
GIS platform. The Ecobase software has provision for this and GIS is
already integrated into the EBOP software. Don't bother learning Chinese
get ahead with a course in GIS :)

Rest of post

I would say ideally any database should not be linked to a particular
GIS platform.

The data should be in a format that allows any GIS to consume the data
otherwise you are simply building a barrier to access, often a very
costly barrier if the GIS its tied too is licence controlled ($$$).

In an ideal world you should be unaware of the physical location of the
data, you just know how to connect or pick up the service so you can
interact (as user / editor / contributor etc).

Thanks
Alan

Alan Berry-Cope | GIS Administrator
Environment Waikato
P: +64 7 859 0999
F: +64 7 859 0998
E: <email obscured>
W: http://www.ew.govt.nz/Maps/

PO Box 4010, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3247

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Paul
Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 07:49
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

We are returning to the point that your database should ideally have a
GIS platform. The Ecobase software has provision for this and GIS is
already integrated into the EBOP software. Don't bother learning Chinese
get ahead with a course in GIS :)

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim
McLeod
Sent: Tuesday, 4 August 2009 4:35 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

I must admit that at the moment I am switching between this conversation
and vetting a rather large Resource Consent and an Annual Report of
Operations required by previous related consents. The report is in Word
format (which is unusual as they are normally in pdf - but this may be
because it is a draft). The reports are loaded with plots and numerous
maps, but no actual digital data. They cover many areas including
indigenous organisms and ecosystems. It also refers to much data
collected, and many reports created, by reputable consultants - but no
actual digital data is provided. There is also mention of a couple of
unfortunate situations where bulldozers have inadvertently destroyed
some of these ecosystems - "no one knew about them - that they were so
important".

It struck me that a big step forward would be access to the actual data
and the mandatory vesting of these data somewhere conveniently
accessible to project managers and other accountable people, as well as
the regulatory authorities and where appropriate the general public for
their edification.

Obviously many of the maps would be of more value in some spatial data
visualisation system enabling interactivet zooming and overlaying rather
then the brain warping flicking between pages I am presently engaged in.

The locations, extents, photos, and descriptions of the organisms and
ecosystems seemed the logical data to vest in the NVS. The groundwater
information could be required to enter the NGMP and the surface water
data the WRA.

However the overhead of getting the consent applicants to do this and
the additional effort of pulling it all back together in some sort of
analytical desktop tool suggest that I might be better of doing a
"local" solution as you suggest. And as the consent applicant points out
it is all available in the pdfs.

Bear in mind that this is how many Councils get most of "their"
environmental data; connected to consents, in pdfs or on paper.

Jim

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/2TbFvQW87sTDQ11kVewKLQ

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
You are prohibited from distributing this E-mail without permission. If
you have received this E-mail by mistake or are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender and erase the message immediately.
This E-mail message and any accompanying data is confidential and may be
legally privileged. The Nelson City Council does not warrant or
guarantee that this communication is free of errors, virus or
interference. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal.

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4fQiEEfAQNta21XgYoJPjU

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************

Bit of a circular argument. The connection / interface needs to be there
to use GIS. No reason why the interface should create a barrier. I agree
that cost could be an issue if you are buying in to a new system but
most Councils / organisations already have GIS so less of an issue.

I was trying to emphasize the added value of data selection, entry,
validation, maniplualtion and reporting using GIS....which you will know
more about than I.

Paul

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Alan
Berry-Cope
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 8:17 a.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

I would say ideally any database should not be linked to a particular
GIS platform.

The data should be in a format that allows any GIS to consume the data
otherwise you are simply building a barrier to access, often a very
costly barrier if the GIS its tied too is licence controlled ($$$).

In an ideal world you should be unaware of the physical location of the
data, you just know how to connect or pick up the service so you can
interact (as user / editor / contributor etc).

Thanks
Alan

Alan Berry-Cope | GIS Administrator
Environment Waikato
P: +64 7 859 0999
F: +64 7 859 0998
E: <email obscured>
W: http://www.ew.govt.nz/Maps/

PO Box 4010, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3247

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Paul
Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 07:49
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

We are returning to the point that your database should ideally have a
GIS platform. The Ecobase software has provision for this and GIS is
already integrated into the EBOP software. Don't bother learning Chinese
get ahead with a course in GIS :)

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim
McLeod
Sent: Tuesday, 4 August 2009 4:35 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

I must admit that at the moment I am switching between this conversation
and vetting a rather large Resource Consent and an Annual Report of
Operations required by previous related consents. The report is in Word
format (which is unusual as they are normally in pdf - but this may be
because it is a draft). The reports are loaded with plots and numerous
maps, but no actual digital data. They cover many areas including
indigenous organisms and ecosystems. It also refers to much data
collected, and many reports created, by reputable consultants - but no
actual digital data is provided. There is also mention of a couple of
unfortunate situations where bulldozers have inadvertently destroyed
some of these ecosystems - "no one knew about them - that they were so
important".

It struck me that a big step forward would be access to the actual data
and the mandatory vesting of these data somewhere conveniently
accessible to project managers and other accountable people, as well as
the regulatory authorities and where appropriate the general public for
their edification.

Obviously many of the maps would be of more value in some spatial data
visualisation system enabling interactivet zooming and overlaying rather
then the brain warping flicking between pages I am presently engaged in.

The locations, extents, photos, and descriptions of the organisms and
ecosystems seemed the logical data to vest in the NVS. The groundwater
information could be required to enter the NGMP and the surface water
data the WRA.

However the overhead of getting the consent applicants to do this and
the additional effort of pulling it all back together in some sort of
analytical desktop tool suggest that I might be better of doing a
"local" solution as you suggest. And as the consent applicant points out
it is all available in the pdfs.

Bear in mind that this is how many Councils get most of "their"
environmental data; connected to consents, in pdfs or on paper.

Jim

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/2TbFvQW87sTDQ11kVewKLQ

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
You are prohibited from distributing this E-mail without permission. If
you have received this E-mail by mistake or are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender and erase the message immediately.
This E-mail message and any accompanying data is confidential and may be
legally privileged. The Nelson City Council does not warrant or
guarantee that this communication is free of errors, virus or
interference. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal.

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4fQiEEfAQNta21XgYoJPjU

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

**********************************************************************
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/4YANKHqDM6wdo8H4256p5c

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
You are prohibited from distributing this E-mail without permission. If you
have received this E-mail by mistake or are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and erase the message immediately. This E-mail message and
any accompanying data is confidential and may be legally privileged. The Nelson
City Council does not warrant or guarantee that this communication is free of
errors, virus or interference. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by
MailMarshal.

Paul,

Why do you say 'should ideally have a GIS platform'?

Part of the data may well be spatial x,y coordinates, and maybe even polygons
or rasters, but most of the data will be structured around other kinds of data,
e.g.: metadata, names, surveys, habitat types, management actions, reports. You
can shoe-horn those data into a GIS if you want but it isn't the best
repository for them. Also if the platform is intended to be part of a federated
network then it needs to provide service interfaces like WMS and WFS from a
spatial perspective, but it also needs to provide, for example OAI-PMH services
for metadata, and any number of SOAP/REST services based on other standards
for other kinds of data.

GIS is part of the solution but certainly not the whole solution.

What I see as being needed is a combination of a GIS solution for the spatial
data component, linked to several standardised RDBMS or XML databases dealing
with structured data, linked to various potential solutions for dealing with
semi-structured data (e.g. spreadsheets) which may include added 'semantic
markup', linked to repositories for unstructured textual data (e.g. word
documents), linked to binary stores for non-textual data, linked to one or more
metadata systems.

That's the vision I see. It isn't a single system but rather a community of
interoperable sytems designed to function together through standard service
interfaces, protocols and ontologies.

Jerry

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Paul Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 7:49 a.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

We are returning to the point that your database should ideally have a
GIS platform. The Ecobase software has provision for this and GIS is
already integrated into the EBOP software. Don't bother learning Chinese
get ahead with a course in GIS :)

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim
McLeod
Sent: Tuesday, 4 August 2009 4:35 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

I must admit that at the moment I am switching between this conversation
and
vetting a rather large Resource Consent and an Annual Report of
Operations
required by previous related consents. The report is in Word format
(which
is unusual as they are normally in pdf - but this may be because it is a
draft). The reports are loaded with plots and numerous maps, but no
actual
digital data. They cover many areas including indigenous organisms and
ecosystems. It also refers to much data collected, and many reports
created,
by reputable consultants - but no actual digital data is provided.
There is also mention of a couple of unfortunate situations where
bulldozers
have inadvertently destroyed some of these ecosystems - "no one knew
about
them - that they were so important".

It struck me that a big step forward would be access to the actual data
and
the mandatory vesting of these data somewhere conveniently accessible to
project managers and other accountable people, as well as the regulatory
authorities and where appropriate the general public for their
edification.

Obviously many of the maps would be of more value in some spatial data
visualisation system enabling interactivet zooming and overlaying rather
then the brain warping flicking between pages I am presently engaged in.

The locations, extents, photos, and descriptions of the organisms and
ecosystems seemed the logical data to vest in the NVS. The groundwater
information could be required to enter the NGMP and the surface water
data
the WRA.

However the overhead of getting the consent applicants to do this and
the
additional effort of pulling it all back together in some sort of
analytical
desktop tool suggest that I might be better of doing a "local" solution
as
you suggest. And as the consent applicant points out it is all available
in
the pdfs.

Bear in mind that this is how many Councils get most of "their"
environmental data; connected to consents, in pdfs or on paper.

Jim

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/2TbFvQW87sTDQ11kVewKLQ

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
You are prohibited from distributing this E-mail without permission. If you
have received this E-mail by mistake or are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and erase the message immediately. This E-mail message and
any accompanying data is confidential and may be legally privileged. The Nelson
City Council does not warrant or guarantee that this communication is free of
errors, virus or interference. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by
MailMarshal.

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4fQiEEfAQNta21XgYoJPjU

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

Yes I agree that GIS type tools can help, as well as digital/statistical
analysis tools, and semantic tools (its common in consent documents for many
different terms to be used to identify the same thing, and also for those
terms to be used to mean something else).

So to get this started, one option is that Resource Consent conditions
require lodgement of consent data and documents suitably structured in a
database / text-base with agreed attributes and metadata.
Where should the Resource Consent data / documents be placed?
Where do we get the specifications for the data / document /text structures
and the semantics for the textual interpretations?
Which metadata specifications should be required?

Jerry

Thanks for your feedback. I was not suggesting that GIS is the whole
solution - just making the point that GIS is an important component. The
subsequent discussion has been useful to tease out some of the issues /
considerations associated with an environmental database system design
(local and federated).

Paul

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Jerry Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 9:00 a.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

Paul,

Why do you say 'should ideally have a GIS platform'?

Part of the data may well be spatial x,y coordinates, and maybe even
polygons or rasters, but most of the data will be structured around
other kinds of data, e.g.: metadata, names, surveys, habitat types,
management actions, reports. You can shoe-horn those data into a GIS if
you want but it isn't the best repository for them. Also if the
platform is intended to be part of a federated network then it needs to
provide service interfaces like WMS and WFS from a spatial perspective,
but it also needs to provide, for example OAI-PMH services for metadata,
and any number of SOAP/REST services based on other standards for other
kinds of data.

GIS is part of the solution but certainly not the whole solution.

What I see as being needed is a combination of a GIS solution for the
spatial data component, linked to several standardised RDBMS or XML
databases dealing with structured data, linked to various potential
solutions for dealing with semi-structured data (e.g. spreadsheets)
which may include added 'semantic markup', linked to repositories for
unstructured textual data (e.g. word documents), linked to binary stores
for non-textual data, linked to one or more metadata systems.

That's the vision I see. It isn't a single system but rather a community
of interoperable sytems designed to function together through standard
service interfaces, protocols and ontologies.

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Paul
Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, 5 August 2009 7:49 a.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

We are returning to the point that your database should ideally have a
GIS platform. The Ecobase software has provision for this and GIS is
already integrated into the EBOP software. Don't bother learning Chinese
get ahead with a course in GIS :)

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim
McLeod
Sent: Tuesday, 4 August 2009 4:35 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
Databases

I must admit that at the moment I am switching between this conversation
and
vetting a rather large Resource Consent and an Annual Report of
Operations
required by previous related consents. The report is in Word format
(which
is unusual as they are normally in pdf - but this may be because it is a
draft). The reports are loaded with plots and numerous maps, but no
actual
digital data. They cover many areas including indigenous organisms and
ecosystems. It also refers to much data collected, and many reports
created,
by reputable consultants - but no actual digital data is provided.
There is also mention of a couple of unfortunate situations where
bulldozers
have inadvertently destroyed some of these ecosystems - "no one knew
about
them - that they were so important".

It struck me that a big step forward would be access to the actual data
and
the mandatory vesting of these data somewhere conveniently accessible to
project managers and other accountable people, as well as the regulatory
authorities and where appropriate the general public for their
edification.

Obviously many of the maps would be of more value in some spatial data
visualisation system enabling interactivet zooming and overlaying rather
then the brain warping flicking between pages I am presently engaged in.

The locations, extents, photos, and descriptions of the organisms and
ecosystems seemed the logical data to vest in the NVS. The groundwater
information could be required to enter the NGMP and the surface water
data
the WRA.

However the overhead of getting the consent applicants to do this and
the
additional effort of pulling it all back together in some sort of
analytical
desktop tool suggest that I might be better of doing a "local" solution
as
you suggest. And as the consent applicant points out it is all available
in
the pdfs.

Bear in mind that this is how many Councils get most of "their"
environmental data; connected to consents, in pdfs or on paper.

Jim

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/2TbFvQW87sTDQ11kVewKLQ

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
You are prohibited from distributing this E-mail without permission. If
you have received this E-mail by mistake or are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender and erase the message immediately.
This E-mail message and any accompanying data is confidential and may be
legally privileged. The Nelson City Council does not warrant or
guarantee that this communication is free of errors, virus or
interference. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by MailMarshal.

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4fQiEEfAQNta21XgYoJPjU

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately
by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research
New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/oZAeyZ5Lf67u90n0827Z1

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
You are prohibited from distributing this E-mail without permission. If you
have received this E-mail by mistake or are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and erase the message immediately. This E-mail message and
any accompanying data is confidential and may be legally privileged. The Nelson
City Council does not warrant or guarantee that this communication is free of
errors, virus or interference. This e-mail has been scanned and cleared by
MailMarshal.

Jim

You said ...
>So to get this started, one option is that Resource Consent conditions
>require lodgement of consent data and documents suitably structured in a
>database / text-base with agreed attributes and metadata.

I don't know what a resource consent looks like, so I'm on thin ice here, but
...

Is there a user needs analysis that indicates these 'documents' need a formal
structure managed by an information system? Or am I making another assumption
based on the words you are using?

Is it not the case:
1) that information from structured repositories(s) should inform the
'document(s)' (perhaps through some defined and managed workflow that assembles
the document, or maybe simply by manual cut & paste);
2) the resulting document(s) may exist separately in a linked text base(s) (by
which I assume you mean a document management system);
3) that perhaps both the primary data and the final synthesized 'report
document' are needed, and both should be accessible (but not necessarily
centralized)?

You said ...
>Where do we get the specifications for the data / document /text structures
>and the semantics for the textual interpretations?
>Which metadata specifications should be required?

That's where you get a working group of experts together, roll your sleeves up,
and get on with it. You borrow from standards where they exist and you invent
them and arrive at consensus where they don't.
That is the way we work in the Biodiversity Information Standards group (TDWG),
http://www.tdwg.org/getting-started/ , and we borrowed the same logical process
used by bodies like IETF http://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html, and
the W3C http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities .

Jerry

Rest of post

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jerry Cooper <
<email obscured>> wrote:

>
> I don't know what a resource consent looks like, so I'm on thin ice here,
> but ...
>
> Is there a user needs analysis that indicates these 'documents' need a
> formal structure managed by an information system? Or am I making another
> assumption based on the words you are using?

For RMA Resource Consents applicants have to conform to the requirements set
out in the Regional Plans that are specific to the different Regions.
Proposed activities need to have environmental impact assessments. Many
applicants contract this work to consultants and their reports are bundled
together as part of the Resource Consent Application. Significant activities
can require large amounts of data and numerous reports. If the activity is
approved then this in turn can generate large amounts of data and reports as
part of the monitoring and continued assessment of effects. At present (I
think it fair to say) most Regional Councils are still struggling with the
actual consenting process let alone the natural and physical resource data
and information involved and sub sequentially generated.

Is it not the case:
> 1) that information from structured repositories(s) should inform the
> 'document(s)' (perhaps through some defined and managed workflow that
> assembles the document, or maybe simply by manual cut & paste);
> 2) the resulting document(s) may exist separately in a linked text base(s)
> (by which I assume you mean a document management system);
> 3) that perhaps both the primary data and the final synthesized 'report
> document' are needed, and both should be accessible (but not necessarily
> centralized)?
>
Document management systems, as the name implies, manage the documents, not
the document contents.

No the documents don't necessarily have to be centralised, however most
people working in this area still like paper so somewhere there tends to be
a centralised store holding the master copies of these documents.
Negotiations of course lead to changes in these documents and versions
control then becomes a major challenge.

> You said ...
> >Where do we get the specifications for the data / document /text
> structures
> >and the semantics for the textual interpretations?
> >Which metadata specifications should be required?
>
> That's where you get a working group of experts together, roll your sleeves
> up, and get on with it. You borrow from standards where they exist and you
> invent them and arrive at consensus where they don't.
> That is the way we work in the Biodiversity Information Standards group
> (TDWG), http://www.tdwg.org/getting-started/ , and we borrowed the same
> logical process used by bodies like IETF
> http://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html, and the W3C
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities .

So my initial, perhaps naive, thought was that some of these standards might
exist around our Nationally Significant Databases. So far, if there are
standards, they don't appear to be easily available. This suggests then that
I should be seeking examples from overseas and then building around these to
invent what is lacking.

Consensus is also a challenge, where are the communities that can help build
the consensus. Of course an option here is to get a small tight team
together. Do an initial version (or beta release) and impose that, then
stand back and watch who reacts. You can then identify the affected and
perhaps interested community with whom you can engage on for version 2 (or
the "production" release).

Cheers
Jim

Of course as Colin points out Short
link<http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/7bUczQHu3MTawwB39Om4xZ>
collaboration is arguable far better than going alone. And determining and
delivering where we can collectively add significant value/security/etc is
even better still.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Jim McLeod <<email obscured>> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jerry Cooper <
> <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know what a resource consent looks like, so I'm on thin ice here,
>> but ...
>>
>> Is there a user needs analysis that indicates these 'documents' need a
>> formal structure managed by an information system? Or am I making another
>> assumption based on the words you are using?
>
> For RMA Resource Consents applicants have to conform to the requirements
> set out in the Regional Plans that are specific to the different Regions.
> Proposed activities need to have environmental impact assessments. Many
> applicants contract this work to consultants and their reports are bundled
> together as part of the Resource Consent Application. Significant activities
> can require large amounts of data and numerous reports. If the activity is
> approved then this in turn can generate large amounts of data and reports as
> part of the monitoring and continued assessment of effects. At present (I
> think it fair to say) most Regional Councils are still struggling with the
> actual consenting process let alone the natural and physical resource data
> and information involved and sub sequentially generated.
>
> Is it not the case:
>> 1) that information from structured repositories(s) should inform the
>> 'document(s)' (perhaps through some defined and managed workflow that
>> assembles the document, or maybe simply by manual cut & paste);
>> 2) the resulting document(s) may exist separately in a linked text base(s)
>> (by which I assume you mean a document management system);
>> 3) that perhaps both the primary data and the final synthesized 'report
>> document' are needed, and both should be accessible (but not necessarily
>> centralized)?
>>
> Document management systems, as the name implies, manage the documents, not
> the document contents.
>
> No the documents don't necessarily have to be centralised, however most
> people working in this area still like paper so somewhere there tends to be
> a centralised store holding the master copies of these documents.
> Negotiations of course lead to changes in these documents and versions
> control then becomes a major challenge.
>
>
>> You said ...
>> >Where do we get the specifications for the data / document /text
>> structures
>> >and the semantics for the textual interpretations?
>> >Which metadata specifications should be required?
>>
>> That's where you get a working group of experts together, roll your
>> sleeves up, and get on with it. You borrow from standards where they exist
>> and you invent them and arrive at consensus where they don't.
>> That is the way we work in the Biodiversity Information Standards group
>> (TDWG), http://www.tdwg.org/getting-started/ , and we borrowed the same
>> logical process used by bodies like IETF
>> http://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html, and the W3C
>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/activities .

Rest of post

Jim,
Document management systems do manage documents of course. But my preamble to
point 2 indicated that the contents of these documents 'could' be generated by
a managed workflow driven by the structured data captured elsewhere.

Documents will always be 'just a pile of words' unless: 1) the structure and
content is controlled and driven by another process; 2) and/or the document
content is 'marked up' in some way that allows semantic context to be applied
to specific items within the document (even if its just paragraph styles in
Word); 3) and/or there is good metadata about the document, including keyword
'tagging' from an agreed ontology/thesaurus, that allows inferences to be made
about the content of the document.

A stand alone document management system at least gives you 3, and is more than
just a file directory.

As for the existence of standards that could use from the Nationally
Significant Databases ...

Defined standards and working practices are used in most if not all of the
Nationally Significant databases and I'm certain there are components of use
for your scenario. For the requirements (I'm guessing) you have then of course
there won't be a complete recipe of standards you can take and use, either
here or overseas.

I suspect your information requirements will be satisfied by: 1) use of some
elements of some standards that are widely known and adopted here and overseas
(e.g Dublin Core), 2) some domain specific standards that you can adopt that
are used by NSDs (e.g. Taxon Concept Schema, Darwin Core, MODS etc), 3) some
standards used by similar projects overseas, 4) some you need to invent through
a process.

But regarding the NSDs, don't expect much of their efforts in this area to be
downloadable documents on the web. Historically we haven't had the resources to
do that. I suggest you meet with the curators of relevent NSDs, with your user
needs analysis and requirements analysis in hand, and then I think there would
be a useful dialogue. In general that is the approach we have adopted in
managing our systems. We get involved in the standards communities in our
domain.

Jerry

Rest of post

With particular reference to the last posts regarding the difficulties of
relating and viewing documents submitted in the RMA process and the role of
GIS: I expect that there are many similar situations where an assessor â such
as Jim, or the Biodiversity Advice/Condition Fund, - requires linkage of
documents, databases and GIS mapping tools, and ideally has instant access to
the documents. The following set-up offers interoperability between digital
repositories and web-based GIS. See attached âProject Summary CPF112â.

The Community Partnership Fund Project 112 (Min Internal Affairs Digital
Strategy) funded T.E.R:R.A.I.N (Taranaki Educational Resource: Research and
Analysis Information Network) to draw existing technologies together, develop
specific aspects, and provide low-cost archiving and mapping solutions. This
model for contributing data to GIS and linking geographic locations to
electronic repositories may be used by both community groups and government
agencies.

See it working with community groups on www.terrain.net.nz. The most recent
kete software is utilised on http://kete.pukekura.org.nz where many different
file formats are linked to each other, and NPDC GISBoost maps.

Each participant in T.E.R:R.A.I.N. may use a National Libraries âketeâ
digital library to store resources, be they spreadsheets, documents, images,
audio or video. We have prepared training guides to assist with understanding
the NZ digital standards. Links from documents to other sites, and links
between documents, can be easily arranged. The groups have available to them
various methods to contribute âcitizen scientistâ data online directly to a
database (and to reference the geographical location through a point-click
map); online to spreadsheets in Google Apps; and by linking âketeâ digital
library resources to geographic locations which may then be viewed on a map in
a browser. Now that we have built up some resources, many more links between
maps and ketes will be appearing over the next months.

Crucial to the Pukekura Park kete operation is the provenance of data and
documents, and the provision of RSS feeds (to soon be improved in the next kete
update). CPF112 developed the kete software to enable metadata to be carried in
with all files uploaded to kete, and in downloads to a third party.
T.E.R:R.A.I.N is also keen to promote the use of GIS metadata profiles by
participating groups. Metadata harvesting will enable efficient use of
information. Biodiversity groups will need to discuss the issues of preferred
systems with the government sector. Different groups may suit different
profiles, or they may adopt an international model.

Advice from the Dataversity Group will be welcomed!

A system for categorising the level of expertise of community data contributors
would be really useful, and needs to be incorporated into the metadata (for
documents, databases and GIS). Some individuals in the community have highly
specialised knowledge which can be recognised. Contributions from the
communities provide useful indicative data and fine-scale information for
biodiversity forecasting, Assessments of Environmental Effects, and general
planning. Authorities would be able to pinpoint questionable sources through
the metadata. Tapping into local knowledge would make the use of PPGIS a more
powerful tool for local government.

Project Summary CPF112.pdf 350.75kb

Building on our efforts with NVS (National Vegetation Survey Databank) We have
driven the international collaborations to develop Veg-X, a draft standard for
the exchange of vegetation plot data. This work was funded by TFBIS and the
ARC-NZ Vegetation Function Network and is endorsed by the International
Association of Vegetation Science. Our goal is to design a standard for
vegetation plot data that is maximally compatible with existing standards and
is useful for community-based co-occurrence sampling for many types of
organisms (e.g., inter-tidal zone plots, sub-tidal benthic plots and
transects). This effort has involved 12 participants from 6 countries, all of
which hold major vegetation plot databases.

Adoption of such a standard could provide one of the building blocks for
facilitating the kind of data exchange via distribution systems that is being
discussed here. At this time, the standard is only a draft and our group
welcomes input, critique etc. This can be done via our Wiki
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/Vegetation/WebHome

Where to from here? We've given talks on the exchange standard at the IAVS
annual meeting and Jerry Cooper will be giving a talk on it at INTECOL in
Brisbane next week at the ARC-NZ network symposium. In our work plan for NVS
this year we are planning to do a proof-of-concept around-the-loop test --
write the code to get data out of NVS and into the schema and back again. We
are also in the process of preparing a manuscript (with our collaborators) for
an international journal explaining why such a standard is desirable.

At the same time, we see a strong domestic need for such standard. We have been
considering pursuing future funding options (TFBIS?) to work with other major
holders of plot-based vegetation data (e.g. MfE and the LUCAS system, PSP
(Scion), data stored in the FORMAK) to determine a) whether there is an
interested in sharing data from these distributed sources via an exchange
schema; b) will Veg-X serve this purpose; c) what technological developments
would be required to make this work?

Input/comments welcome!

cheers,
Susan

Rest of post

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jerry Cooper <
<email obscured>> wrote:

>
> But regarding the NSDs, don't expect much of their efforts in this area to
> be downloadable documents on the web. Historically we haven't had the
> resources to do that. I suggest you meet with the curators of relevent NSDs,
> with your user needs analysis and requirements analysis in hand, and then I
> think there would be a useful dialogue. In general that is the approach we
> have adopted in managing our systems. We get involved in the standards
> communities in our domain.
>
> Jerry
>

Thanks Jerry,

So getting Consent Holders to put environmental data into an NSD as the
master store is not a good idea for at least the short to medium term.

I should be looking for some where else to require Consent Holders to drop
data for easy (controlled) access by many.

Jim,
How can you possibly interpret what I said as meaning that people shouldn't put
their data into the NSDs! I take offence at that.

Now listen carefully and I'll say it again.

I said the standards that have been used may not be documented and accessible,
that hasn't been our priority with the limited funds. I didn't say that the
systems themselves don't use best practice standards and technologies.

Speaking for Landcare Research, we have an Informatics team of 30 people
involved in developing and maintaining these systems. Many of those people are
cross-discipline domain experts and ICT experts. Because of that boundary
expertise we are connected to global ICT best-practice around each of the NSDs
we manage. I suspect the same level of expertise is not available to support
many corporate or research data management systems in New Zealand. In the
domain of biodiversity information systems I know that is true. We recently
attended the first global conference in Biodiversity Informatics called
e-Biosphere in London. Around 500 people attended and everybody was asked to
fill in a detailed questionnaire. The results of that analysis indicate that
Landcare Research sits in the centre of the network of 500 as part of a cluster
of leaders and innovators in this area. We were ranked directly alongside half
a dozen multi-million dollar international projects like GBIF and EOL.

So do please place relevant data into the NSDs we manage, and do be reassured
that the data is managed appropriately.

Jerry

Rest of post

Thanks Jerry.Sincere apologies for any aspersions that I may have been cast
upon CRI data management.

My dilemma was how do I get the data *out* once it has gone *in*?

Prior to the Web, my approach has been to gather (at least) all necessary
data into my local/personal system. Then some one said "corporate should
look after it". Very good, but when do I get the data?

We are solving that, but now some one is saying "Why corporate? It should be
a national database!".

Very good, but when do I get the data?

I am sure it is well protected and well managed, but we need it to enable
evidence based decision making. Yes, some times at 2am!

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jerry Cooper <

Rest of post

<email obscured>> wrote:

> Jim,
> How can you possibly interpret what I said as meaning that people shouldn't
> put their data into the NSDs! I take offence at that.
>
> Now listen carefully and I'll say it again.
>
> I said the standards that have been used may not be documented and
> accessible, that hasn't been our priority with the limited funds. I didn't
> say that the systems themselves don't use best practice standards and
> technologies.
>
> Speaking for Landcare Research, we have an Informatics team of 30 people
> involved in developing and maintaining these systems. Many of those people
> are cross-discipline domain experts and ICT experts. Because of that
> boundary expertise we are connected to global ICT best-practice around each
> of the NSDs we manage. I suspect the same level of expertise is not
> available to support many corporate or research data management systems in
> New Zealand. In the domain of biodiversity information systems I know that
> is true. We recently attended the first global conference in Biodiversity
> Informatics called e-Biosphere in London. Around 500 people attended and
> everybody was asked to fill in a detailed questionnaire. The results of that
> analysis indicate that Landcare Research sits in the centre of the network
> of 500 as part of a cluster of leaders and innovators in this area. We were
> ranked directly alongside half a dozen multi-million dollar international
> projects like GBIF and EOL.
>
> So do please place relevant data into the NSDs we manage, and do be
> reassured that the data is managed appropriately.
>
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz [mailto:
> dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim McLeod
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:33 a.m.
> To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
> Databases
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jerry Cooper <
> <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> >
> > But regarding the NSDs, don't expect much of their efforts in this area
> to
> > be downloadable documents on the web. Historically we haven't had the
> > resources to do that. I suggest you meet with the curators of relevent
> NSDs,
> > with your user needs analysis and requirements analysis in hand, and then
> I
> > think there would be a useful dialogue. In general that is the approach
> we
> > have adopted in managing our systems. We get involved in the standards
> > communities in our domain.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
>
> Thanks Jerry,
>
> So getting Consent Holders to put environmental data into an NSD as the
> master store is not a good idea for at least the short to medium term.
>
> I should be looking for some where else to require Consent Holders to drop
> data for easy (controlled) access by many.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/42h3I09nK8V1mTELL331jQ
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5hpL3VmerEiaRHxZtGmVEG
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

Landcare research is progressing the 'get data out again' bit on a few fronts.
For example, NVS will be rolling out web based services that allow data owners
to review their data holdings, grant access right to others, and upload and
down load copies of their data. Overtime we will extend these ideas, where
appropriate, to other NSD and non-NSD repositories including general datasets,
workflow/processes that can be rerun or shared, models and analysis routines
that again that can be rerun or shared to others.

Rest of post

And the NZBRN, which isn't an NatSigDatabase, has flexible reporting and
download tools. There are tentative plans to greatly improve the NZBRN and
associated web services, hopefully with support from our Australian colleagues
doing similar things.

Amongst Landcare's other NatSig databases there is perhaps only the National
Soils database that could be improved with respect to external data deposit.
New soil sample data is thin on the ground, nearly as thin on the ground as
soil scientists. National funding agencies have a poor recent track record in
supporting this area. Any data is a useful addition to the S-Map exercise to
model NZ's soils systems.

The remaining NatSigDatabases in Landcare Reasearch are not relevent to direct
deposit of data because they are associated with the national organisms
collections.

So I'm wondering what nationally significant databases aren't supplying data?
It would be useful for us to know. Not just Landcare but the NatSigDs in
general. That kind of information strengthens our case for improved support.

Jerry

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Nick
Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 1:12 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

Landcare research is progressing the 'get data out again' bit on a few fronts.
For example, NVS will be rolling out web based services that allow data owners
to review their data holdings, grant access right to others, and upload and
down load copies of their data. Overtime we will extend these ideas, where
appropriate, to other NSD and non-NSD repositories including general datasets,
workflow/processes that can be rerun or shared, models and analysis routines
that again that can be rerun or shared to others.

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim McLeod
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:21 a.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

Thanks Jerry.Sincere apologies for any aspersions that I may have been cast
upon CRI data management.

My dilemma was how do I get the data *out* once it has gone *in*?

Prior to the Web, my approach has been to gather (at least) all necessary
data into my local/personal system. Then some one said "corporate should
look after it". Very good, but when do I get the data?

We are solving that, but now some one is saying "Why corporate? It should be
a national database!".

Very good, but when do I get the data?

I am sure it is well protected and well managed, but we need it to enable
evidence based decision making. Yes, some times at 2am!

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jerry Cooper <
<email obscured>> wrote:

> Jim,
> How can you possibly interpret what I said as meaning that people shouldn't
> put their data into the NSDs! I take offence at that.
>
> Now listen carefully and I'll say it again.
>
> I said the standards that have been used may not be documented and
> accessible, that hasn't been our priority with the limited funds. I didn't
> say that the systems themselves don't use best practice standards and
> technologies.
>
> Speaking for Landcare Research, we have an Informatics team of 30 people
> involved in developing and maintaining these systems. Many of those people
> are cross-discipline domain experts and ICT experts. Because of that
> boundary expertise we are connected to global ICT best-practice around each
> of the NSDs we manage. I suspect the same level of expertise is not
> available to support many corporate or research data management systems in
> New Zealand. In the domain of biodiversity information systems I know that
> is true. We recently attended the first global conference in Biodiversity
> Informatics called e-Biosphere in London. Around 500 people attended and
> everybody was asked to fill in a detailed questionnaire. The results of that
> analysis indicate that Landcare Research sits in the centre of the network
> of 500 as part of a cluster of leaders and innovators in this area. We were
> ranked directly alongside half a dozen multi-million dollar international
> projects like GBIF and EOL.
>
> So do please place relevant data into the NSDs we manage, and do be
> reassured that the data is managed appropriately.
>
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz [mailto:
> dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim McLeod
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:33 a.m.
> To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
> Databases
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jerry Cooper <
> <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> >
> > But regarding the NSDs, don't expect much of their efforts in this area
> to
> > be downloadable documents on the web. Historically we haven't had the
> > resources to do that. I suggest you meet with the curators of relevent
> NSDs,
> > with your user needs analysis and requirements analysis in hand, and then
> I
> > think there would be a useful dialogue. In general that is the approach
> we
> > have adopted in managing our systems. We get involved in the standards
> > communities in our domain.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
>
> Thanks Jerry,
>
> So getting Consent Holders to put environmental data into an NSD as the
> master store is not a good idea for at least the short to medium term.
>
> I should be looking for some where else to require Consent Holders to drop
> data for easy (controlled) access by many.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/42h3I09nK8V1mTELL331jQ
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5hpL3VmerEiaRHxZtGmVEG
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4ew4kEJfW6q8A1mfCZPO9p

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/3J6EtQOWr4SYH3BmR6t4BV

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

and I should add that NVS also manages physical resources as well. Hard copies
of field data sheets, photgraphs, slides and old location maps etc. We have a
small staff of curators that can help with access to this content. NB// there
maybe a small charge for large requests.

nick

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jerry
Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 3:26 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

And the NZBRN, which isn't an NatSigDatabase, has flexible reporting and
download tools. There are tentative plans to greatly improve the NZBRN and
associated web services, hopefully with support from our Australian colleagues
doing similar things.

Amongst Landcare's other NatSig databases there is perhaps only the National
Soils database that could be improved with respect to external data deposit.
New soil sample data is thin on the ground, nearly as thin on the ground as
soil scientists. National funding agencies have a poor recent track record in
supporting this area. Any data is a useful addition to the S-Map exercise to
model NZ's soils systems.

The remaining NatSigDatabases in Landcare Reasearch are not relevent to direct
deposit of data because they are associated with the national organisms
collections.

So I'm wondering what nationally significant databases aren't supplying data?
It would be useful for us to know. Not just Landcare but the NatSigDs in
general. That kind of information strengthens our case for improved support.

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Nick
Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 1:12 p.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

Landcare research is progressing the 'get data out again' bit on a few fronts.
For example, NVS will be rolling out web based services that allow data owners
to review their data holdings, grant access right to others, and upload and
down load copies of their data. Overtime we will extend these ideas, where
appropriate, to other NSD and non-NSD repositories including general datasets,
workflow/processes that can be rerun or shared, models and analysis routines
that again that can be rerun or shared to others.

-----Original Message-----
From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
[mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim McLeod
Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:21 a.m.
To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant Databases

Thanks Jerry.Sincere apologies for any aspersions that I may have been cast
upon CRI data management.

My dilemma was how do I get the data *out* once it has gone *in*?

Prior to the Web, my approach has been to gather (at least) all necessary
data into my local/personal system. Then some one said "corporate should
look after it". Very good, but when do I get the data?

We are solving that, but now some one is saying "Why corporate? It should be
a national database!".

Very good, but when do I get the data?

I am sure it is well protected and well managed, but we need it to enable
evidence based decision making. Yes, some times at 2am!

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Jerry Cooper <
<email obscured>> wrote:

> Jim,
> How can you possibly interpret what I said as meaning that people shouldn't
> put their data into the NSDs! I take offence at that.
>
> Now listen carefully and I'll say it again.
>
> I said the standards that have been used may not be documented and
> accessible, that hasn't been our priority with the limited funds. I didn't
> say that the systems themselves don't use best practice standards and
> technologies.
>
> Speaking for Landcare Research, we have an Informatics team of 30 people
> involved in developing and maintaining these systems. Many of those people
> are cross-discipline domain experts and ICT experts. Because of that
> boundary expertise we are connected to global ICT best-practice around each
> of the NSDs we manage. I suspect the same level of expertise is not
> available to support many corporate or research data management systems in
> New Zealand. In the domain of biodiversity information systems I know that
> is true. We recently attended the first global conference in Biodiversity
> Informatics called e-Biosphere in London. Around 500 people attended and
> everybody was asked to fill in a detailed questionnaire. The results of that
> analysis indicate that Landcare Research sits in the centre of the network
> of 500 as part of a cluster of leaders and innovators in this area. We were
> ranked directly alongside half a dozen multi-million dollar international
> projects like GBIF and EOL.
>
> So do please place relevant data into the NSDs we manage, and do be
> reassured that the data is managed appropriately.
>
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz [mailto:
> dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim McLeod
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:33 a.m.
> To: dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Nationally Significant
> Databases
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Jerry Cooper <
> <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> >
> > But regarding the NSDs, don't expect much of their efforts in this area
> to
> > be downloadable documents on the web. Historically we haven't had the
> > resources to do that. I suggest you meet with the curators of relevent
> NSDs,
> > with your user needs analysis and requirements analysis in hand, and then
> I
> > think there would be a useful dialogue. In general that is the approach
> we
> > have adopted in managing our systems. We get involved in the standards
> > communities in our domain.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
>
> Thanks Jerry,
>
> So getting Consent Holders to put environmental data into an NSD as the
> master store is not a good idea for at least the short to medium term.
>
> I should be looking for some where else to require Consent Holders to drop
> data for easy (controlled) access by many.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/42h3I09nK8V1mTELL331jQ
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
> http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5hpL3VmerEiaRHxZtGmVEG
>
> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
> mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4ew4kEJfW6q8A1mfCZPO9p

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/3J6EtQOWr4SYH3BmR6t4BV

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion:
http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/7rMIf1Ddhe8CYiT8BdZVgL

To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email
mailto:dataversity_public_discuss@dataversity.org.nz?Subject=unsubscribe

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

Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose,
copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email
and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Nationally Significant Databases

Already a member?

Not a member?