dhobern
commented
5 years ago Regarding the Machine Observations IG charter:
It would be good to start with a clearer definition of "machine observations" and to indicate the expected scope of the group.
I had assumed that this term would relate primarily to sensors placed at a particular location or on a particular platform and returning a stream of data which may directly or indirectly be interpretable as a stream of observations of (potentially different) species, often associated with simultaneous measures of temperature, salinity, pH, etc. Examples would include camera traps, automated acoustic monitoring, any DNA-based continuous monitoring, remote-sensed imagery, etc.
The primary motivation seems actually to be biologging, although some of these other cases are indicated in the text.
I would like to see a definition of "machine observation" that identifies the commonalities between these cases and includes an assessment of whether the specifics of biologging and multi-species detection by unsupervised systems need separate explorations within TDWG.
I suspect that there are distinct sets of issues around:
- Factors common to biologging and unsupervised species detection (device type, software levels, mounting position, etc.; vocabularies for environmental co-variables)
- Factors specific to biologging (GPS precision over time; frequency of capture of position; representation of data as a polyline, spatial surface or simple polygon; integration with other sources of species occurrence and abundance data)
- Factors specific to unsupervised species detection (storage of raw data from device; algorithms for interpreting species presence/abundance; representing chain of provenance for transformed data)
Addressing this question of scope will also allow the opportunity to give a clear motivation for why existing IGs do not already meet the need.
The examples I give under the three categories above also indicate that, within the TDWG universe, this IG may need to provide guidance for very different purposes. Some aspects relate to guidance on future design and implementation of sensors. Others are around representing the metadata and measurements themselves. Others are about algorithms and representing provenance for data as it is transformed into biologically useful formats. Others are about how to exploit the data in wider contexts such as GBIF indexing of biologging data - how should these data appear in searches and downloads for different purposes.
Again, it would be good to understand whether the IG expects to be the group that addresses questions and issues for all these aspects of use of these data.
baskaufs
chicoreus
ghwhitbread
Proposed charters for an EFG Task Group under the ABCD Interest Group, and for a Machine Observations Interest Group have been submitted to the TDWG Executive, and the Executive is requesting that the TAG consider these proposals for any technical concerns, including concerns about interoperability of products with other TDWG standards.
has submitted a proposal to create a
Proposed Interest Group Charter
Machine Observations Interest Group.
1. Convenor
2. Core Members
3. Motivation
Sensor-based animal monitoring techniques inform a growing field of ecology and marine spatial planning that is capable of producing a very high volume of precise data about the location, internal state and environment of a diverse range of species (e.g. migratory birds, salmonids, conch, mammals both terrestrial and marine). The technologies involved are in constant development, as are the design parameters of the various studies. A growing number of companies are producing smaller, longer-lasting and computational devices that are fitted to a variety of animals, resulting in large and complex datasets. Subsequently there is a call for data standardization from all corners of the sector looking to process, analyse, document and store this valuable data. This group is formed with three main purposes:
Currently these types of data tend to be housed outside the occurrence-based frameworks that have been built with human observations and specimens in focus, leaving them undiscoverable and left out of the larger biodiversity record.
4. Becoming Involved
All practitioners are invited to share rationales for mapping their study activities into DwC or other biodiversity standards as appropriate, and to put forward their own example mappings, especially when using novel methods and/or technologies. The IG wiki (https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-for-biologging NB: link will change) will serve as an umbrella repository under which task groups can convene to produce and collate example mappings within the various domains of Machine Observations. The wiki will also provide a sounding board for the broader community to review and revise these example mappings and provide a guidepost for the community.
5. History/Context
This group’s history is brief, just a recognition by the above group of mainly bio-loggers that there may be other groups working on similar issues in a sensor-animal-deployment paradigm.
6. Summary
This IG recognizes that there are growing independent communities that rely on various technologies that can be said to be producing Machine Observations. The pathways for them to contextualize their research will be as varied as their studies, but certain groups are coming together organically to seek the guidance of their peers as well as the greater biodiversity community. The set of guideposts that will emerge from the Task Groups will assist the single practitioner and the bio-logging database manager in reporting their holdings in terms that are widely understood by and useful to the biodiversity community, and the public at large.
7. Resources
IOC report on the IODE/OBIS-Event-Data workshop on animal tagging and tracking, 23-26 April 2018, Oostende, Belgium http://iobis.org/2018/05/18/att/ DwC for Biologging GitHub repo / wiki : https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-for-biologging International Biologging Conference Data Standardization Workshop (September 2017): https://www.bio-logging.net/#news
Proposed Task Group Charter
Extension for Geosciences Task Group
Under the ABCD Interest Group
Convenor
Mareike Petersen, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin Falko Glöckler, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
Members
Jana Hoffmann, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin Anton Güntsch, Botanical Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem Patricia Mergen, Africamuseum, Tervuren and Meise Botanic Garden Fabian Reimeier, Botanical Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem David Fichtmüller, Botanical Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem
Motivation
Beside biological objects, fossils, rocks and minerals are common in natural history collections worldwide. However, standards focusing primarily on biological disciplines lack terms being important for geoscientific collection objects. Thus the Extension for Geosciences (EFG) was established to extend the ABCD standard with various terms relevant for geoscientific collection objects. This Task Group maintains the schema extension, takes care of the ratification process, and is in charge of any inquiries during the current review.
Goals, outputs and outcomes
The Task Group will support the TDWG ratification process of the EFG schema. We will handle incoming reports during the two-stage review process (directed to reviewers and the public review). Once the validation is completed we will respond to all reviews in detail, incorporate any suggested changes in a revision or explain in detail, in case we retain the respective terms or parts of the schema.
Strategy
To enable a successful ratification of the EFG schema by TDWG, the Task Group will handle incoming inquiries with high priority. In addition we aim to pool the different activities related to earth science in the TDWG Community. This comprises the expertise derived from the Paleobiology Interest Group, relevant Darwin Core extensions and the current developments in the ABCD standard and its extensions.
Becoming involved
This Task Group would welcome anyone who has an interest in the standardized description of fossil, mineralogical, and petrological collection objects and / or experience with geoscientific data standards.
History/context
Development of the Extension for Geoscience (EFG) started in 2005. As a first step towards the definition of a schema for the earth sciences, a team of 11 experts from several European institutions specified the requirements on typical data that describe paleontological and geological collection objects. Building on ABCD, the resulting schema extension was named EFG. After usage in different projects and portals for more than one decade, EFG was lately submitted for ratification to TDWG.
Resources
Petersen, M., Glöckler, F., Kiessling, W., Döring, M., Fichtmüller, D., Laphakorn, L., Baltruschat, B. & Hoffmann, J. (2018). History and development of ABCDEFG: a data standard for geosciences. Fossil Record, 21(1), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.5194/fr-21-47-2018 ABCDEFG XML Schema Definition (XSD), available at https://doi.org/10.7479/pwnr-sh74 (Kiessling et al., 2018)