Subgroups (was Epipactis/Celastrus demonstration project; georeferencing)

[Dal...@aol.com]

Hi all,

 

With total respect and admiration for everyone in this group and the energy that the members are investing, I'm wondering if we couldn't streamline this process a bit by forming  subgroups that focus on various aspects and that best utilize the skills, talents, interests and experience of the individual members. For example, there could be a subgroup working on the demonstration project, one on georeferencing issues, one working on funding, one on database design, photography (you all add the rest). Subgroups could function in relation to the entire group similarly to the way committees function in relationship to a board of directors: spend more time on a smaller issue, hash it out, then present it to the full group for consideration. Overlaps or pass-ons could be worked out between the subgroups.

 

In our case at UVM (VT), we are at a place where we could really use some help on developing the web interface and on producing images that look great on any monitor. We've already invested a bucket of time in choosing the database software, learning about barcoding, designing the database, and the work flow for processing specimens. Thus, I would volunteer to work in one or more of the areas in which I have the most experience, and benefit from learning more from others about web interfaces etc.

 

What think you all? Can there be Google Subgroups? --Dorothy 

 

Dorothy J. Allard, Ph.D.
Analytical Resources LLC
1331 Waterville Mountain Road
Bakersfield, VT 05441

Dorthy,

Thanks for the very helpful and informed comments.  We as a group
definitely need to have a full discussion about what fields we want.
This raises another point: how developed do we want this demonstration
project to be?  We have not really fully discussed (at least at the
last meeting) what the point of the demonstration project is. It seems
from the example data set, which is a legacy of a previous effort from
a prior meeting, that the aim was for a simple, scaled down version of
what was possible.  Can someone who was around during the 2004 meeting
provide the rational for what was decided on then.

It does make sense to me to try to get this demonstration project as
close to what we are aiming for as possible - otherwise what is the
point?  It seems to me that we should, as you suggested, pause and
decide on what fields we really want (and on what we want this
demonstration project to be).  Would it be helpful to begin looking at
the latest Darwin Core schema and begin hashing this out...?  Any
other thoughts?

Patrick

On Jun 16, 2:21 pm, Dall...@aol.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems a bit premature for people to start entering data before the  fields
> have been settled upon.
>
> I have the following comments on the fields for the demonstration project,
> having looked at the example posted on the neahc group:
>
> 1. Some are not necessary for the taxa we have chosen (all of the "infra"
> fields, acronym, and hybrid). We may wish to assign an acronym to each species
> (for example, the one used by plants. usda.gov) as a group.
> 2. When reporting coordinates, the geodetic datum must always be  reported.
> 3. When georeferencing a locality, the degree of accuracy should be
> reported. At VT we are using what we are calling a "radius of  uncertainty"--the
> radius in meters of a circle  that describes the maximum area within which the
> specimen could have  been collected, given what the label states about the
> locality, with the  collection point coordinates as the centroid.
> 4. In order for the data to fit easily into Specify eventually, the
> collectors should be listed in separate fields and given a priority order.  Collector
> 1 is the one who numbered the specimen or who is listed first on the  label.
> 5. There needs to be a field that identifies the repository. There needs to
> be a field that is a unique identifier for each specimen. These two can be
> combined. For example, at VT we use a bar code that is also the accession
> number that starts with "UVMVT" and then is followed by six digits (e.g.,
> "UVMVT000457"). This both identifies the specimen as being from VT but also the
> combination provides a unique identifier for the specimen.
> 6. I think you will want to have one field, at a minimum, for who  determined
> the specimen. At a maximum you will want data on each determination  or
> annotation (i.e., a separate record for each label on the specimen.)
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
> Cheers, Dorothy
>
> Dorothy  J. Allard, Ph.D.
> Analytical Resources LLC
> 1331 Waterville Mountain  Road
> Bakersfield, VT 05441

 

 

 

---

Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.

[patrick...@yale.edu]

Dorthy,

We have made some attempt at organization. Take a look a the notes
from our June 2 meeting where we established a set of initial goals
and formed subgroups.

At the meeting we established a set of very modest, initial goals
dealing mostly with organizational issues. These goals included:
deciding on a name, writing a mission statement and subsidiary goals,
building a good list of regional herbaria and inviting these
institutions to join the network, building a web site, organizing next
year's meeting, and beginning to work on bioinformatics issues.

To meet these goals, we have formed an interim steering committee that
is broken into working groups. There are four groups currently
active: a membership group, an informatics group, a meeting group, and
a web group. There is also a steering committee chair (me & hence all
of the annoying posts) and a secretary. There was talk of a need for
other groups as things progressed (e.g., a funding group - and some
folks did volunteer to begin working on this).

At the meeting there was no real discussion about all of the issues
that would be involved in establishing a full fledged data sharing
node/portal. From our meeting was my impression that we were leaving
the serious bioinformatics side to be tackled a bit later - although
there was no explicit timeline established. There was some very
informal discussion (and perhaps not serious enough) at the meeting
about sharing data and resuming the "demonstration project", which was
first attempted in 2004. It was my impression (and perhaps I am
mistaken here) that this demonstration was a very informal stab at
"sharing data". It is clear now (at least to me) that any
demonstration project should be more ambitious and requires much
thought and discussion.

I personally see no reason why we cannot start discussing the
bioinformatics related issues, but before we get too far along in
this, it seems that we need to have some over arching discussion about
what exactly the final product will be.

Regarding the suggestion to form subgroups to deal the informatics
issues, I think this is a good idea. An alternative to "Google
subgroups" could be to wait until the web site is up, as we intended
for this google group to be a temporary tool. At the meeting we
decided that the web site would have forums/discussion groups for each
of the working groups (see the SERNEC site for an example of this).
Our aim is to have the site up soon. Also, the individuals currently
involved in this google group are a small subset of the potential
number of participants, so when the invites go out and the site is up
we will have larger pool of talent to draw from and we will be
promoting maximum participation. Just a suggestion.

Does anyone want to make an attempt to propose a set of working groups
that would deal with all of the bioinformatics issues? Dorthy has
made a start...

-Patrick

>  (http://highpondfarm.org/)
>
> **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
> fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)