Integrating Prioritisation into Data Systems
Summary
- There are 4 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Dan Randow at 2010 Mar 09 11:14 NZDT
Steve, thank you for pointing out that a general discussion about prioritisation is beyond the scope of Dataversity. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/1z9WsdeBbfskU3TOMZDRnW I agree. The responsibility for starting that conversation, however rests with me for opening a topic called "Ecosystem and Species Ranking". I am therefore starting this new and more aptly named one. Although the debate about prioritisation is (mostly) independent of data issues, the converse is not true. It is hard enough to choose or build a system for one council, whose approach to prioritisation is subject to change. Sharing information, let alone systems between organisations using different (and changing) approaches, is even harder. If we are going to find ways to share or build shared data management systems, those systems themselves, as well the folks here, are going to have to embrace the plural approach that Steve points to. My intention in pursing this topic is to open exactly that conversation. Is it feasible to develop a taxonomy of approaches to prioritisation, with a view to finding some way to translate between them? Could we use this to build shared data management systems that could potentially support even a small set of different approaches?
Dan -- Dan Randow Dataversity Facilitator and Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow
Hi Dan It is very important to ensure that you don't mix up the elements of significance assessment with ecological databases. Significance assessment requires expert knowledge and assessment, as well as good field based data, and survey information. The database is one of the tools but not the driver of ecological assessment. Cheers Shona Shona Myers Group Manager Heritage Programmes and Partnerships Auckland Regional Council Private Bag 92012 Auckland (09) 3662000 ex 8233 021 708042 <email obscured>
www.arc.govt.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 6:29 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Integrating Prioritisation into Data Systems Steve, thank you for pointing out that a general discussion about prioritisation is beyond the scope of Dataversity. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/1z9WsdeBbfskU3TOMZDRnW I agree. The responsibility for starting that conversation, however rests with me for opening a topic called "Ecosystem and Species Ranking". I am therefore starting this new and more aptly named one. Although the debate about prioritisation is (mostly) independent of data issues, the converse is not true. It is hard enough to choose or build a system for one council, whose approach to prioritisation is subject to change. Sharing information, let alone systems between organisations using different (and changing) approaches, is even harder. If we are going to find ways to share or build shared data management systems, those systems themselves, as well the folks here, are going to have to embrace the plural approach that Steve points to. My intention in pursing this topic is to open exactly that conversation. Is it feasible to develop a taxonomy of approaches to prioritisation, with a view to finding some way to translate between them? Could we use this to build shared data management systems that could potentially support even a small set of different approaches? Dan -- Dan Randow Dataversity Facilitator and Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch 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/6v0qViq1Unlb8Adj18qImJ To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?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 NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged. If it is not intended for you, do not read, distribute or copy it or any attachments. Please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message and attachments.
Re: Integrating Prioritisation into Data Systems; and Ecosystem and
Species
Ranking
Friends
In thinking about the biodata management challenges that dataversity has
thus far explored, we need of course to think about all the values
supported by biodata management systems, processes and results. These
values are several, and can be thought of as the reasons or purposes for
the existence of biodata and the data management efforts made or
identified. While biodata managers may assume about those values, unless
there is clear discourse on them, then there is no coherent context or
setting for the world of biodata management. We need to deploy a
reasonably fundamental framework of concepts already available, for
structuring both discourse and information within dataversity, as well
as beyond it, to understand that context, and use it to reflect back on
our approaches to biodata management.
The references to prioritisation and significance assessment (including
ranking) come from that contextual world. Let's explore that set of
ideas to link biodata systems to the values ultimately supported by the
existence of biodata and its management. The end-values for biodata and
its management effort include "bio" research, monitoring, resource
management - both strategic and operational decision-making, public
education and behaviour change, and others more arcane. These
end-values support each other. Each has its coalescing contribution of
concepts, methods and practices, and associated technologies. And these
merge back with the world of biodata and its management.
Some understanding of the world of data end-use or deployment is
therefore of great relevance to the proximate values created or enhanced
through biodata management. For example, in the biological resource
management world, the concepts and routines of:
* environmental and resource characterisation
* systemic definition
* normative framework building
* significance assessment or evaluation
* applying decision-making frameworks (eg. strategic planning,
risk management, policy evaluation frameworks) and through those
* deciding or setting priorities with respect to any strategic
or operational management action;
all arise.
The discourse on dataversity thus far has generated a set of issues that
while not systematically trolled, covers much concerning information
management at large. In principle, discourse and systems development
about the generation and management of biodata and information for
application in growing the end-values listed above, should be amenable
to the effort in managing data per se. But in the generic sequence of
data management operations from capture and conformation, through
processing, integrating and deriving datasets as information, in moving
towards the end-values, the content, methods and operational routines
deployed, change.
Our concern is that there are a number of applications as end-values of
biodata management, to be considered in the discourse and improved
practice in biodata management itself. So within those synthetic
routines there are many operations for which the biodata managers could
account in data management systems, routines and operations. My above
list of resource management routines should show this, and as only part
of the end-use world (consider biological research for a moment). So to
start the wend-values discourse with say (ecosystem, site or taxon)
ranking, which falls as a step within the routine of biological resource
significance assessment at any particular scale, or other context, or
with prioritisation, which falls within the routine of applying
decision-making frameworks within any strategic or operational (resource
or environmental) management context, is potentially to miss the trees
for the wood.
At this point those data people who are losing the plot should encourage
themselves to move beyond the data focus and into the strategic or
contextual foci for a moment. This respectful point is made because,
most importantly, we have a body of contributors to dataversity, that is
working across a number of knowledge bases, and this is good rather than
a difficulty.
The key point here is that the very actions undertaken in end-uses of
data generates an iterative demand for fresh data management needs. So
the first priority is to flush out from "end-use" practitioners, which
operations within which routines have important biodata management needs
to reflect back into the biodata management world, for adding value.
Within the biodata end-use world of bioresource management, I would
nominate:
* bioresource characterisation across scales, environments
* normative frameworks for management (ie. the values basis for
bioresource management across scales, environments, human situations)
* bioresource significance assessment
* bioresource decision-making frameworks;
as key generic routines within which we should ask ourselves to identify
key steps or output areas for which we want to see design improvements
in biodata management. We should then have focussed discourse on these
and integrate our ideas for recalibrating all the appropriate issues
covered within dataversity at the biodata management routines level. A
lexicon of those issues would be handy first-off. In this way, we will
lead to a clearer picture of the appropriate taxonomy of approaches for
these aspects of biodata management, to develop further through
dataversity or other fora. Let's understand the end-use approaches,
their needs, and reflect that back, before settling on any taxonomy.
The subtle repetition in this contribution is entirely deliberate.
Demystification and relational understanding as always
>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> > -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 6:29 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Integrating Prioritisation into Data Systems Steve, thank you for pointing out that a general discussion about prioritisation is beyond the scope of Dataversity. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/1z9WsdeBbfskU3TOMZDRnW I agree. The responsibility for starting that conversation, however rests with me for opening a topic called "Ecosystem and Species Ranking". I am therefore starting this new and more aptly named one. Although the debate about prioritisation is (mostly) independent of data issues, the converse is not true. It is hard enough to choose or build a system for one council, whose approach to prioritisation is subject to change. Sharing information, let alone systems between organisations using different (and changing) approaches, is even harder. If we are going to find ways to share or build shared data management systems, those systems themselves, as well the folks here, are going to have to embrace the plural approach that Steve points to. My intention in pursing this topic is to open exactly that conversation. Is it feasible to develop a taxonomy of approaches to prioritisation, with a view to finding some way to translate between them? Could we use this to build shared data management systems that could potentially support even a small set of different approaches? Dan -- Dan Randow Dataversity Facilitator and Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch 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/6v0qViq1Unlb8Adj18qImJ To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?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 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
Here is the plan on this that emerged from last year's workshop. Integrate Ecosystem and Species Ranking into Biodata Systems Habitat and species ranking systems are useful for prioritisation of biodiversity management efforts, particularly when they are integrated into assessment and monitoring data systems. Environment Waikato, Environment Bay of Plenty, Horizons, the Department of Conservation and Landcare Research have all made progress in this area. An agreed approach, incorporating the work that has been done on prioritisation, could make it easy for local government organisations to improve their own prioritisation practices. This could also facilitate the integration of prioritisation into biodata management systems. 3.2.1 Actions For each of the following organisations, contribute a description of current progress with ranking and prioritisation, and the integration of these into data management systems, and seek feedback. - Environment Waikato — Yanbin Deng - Environment Bay of Plenty — Jim Fretwell - Horizons Regional Council — James Lambie - Department of Conservation — Shirley Vollweiler - Landcare Research — Jerry Cooper Review ranking and prioritisation processes and technologies nationally, and make a plan for progress towards adoption of a shared approach, and integration into biodata systems. Can we take this forward at this year's workshop? Those who are interested in working on this topic at the National Workshop may wish to explore some of the conversations that have already taken place. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/6zOyWQUl4mnKQYS3EfVWOk http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4xLHR0P5DiyJ3xKNQMPAIo Also, there is some background on Environment Waikato's prioritisation work in the system guide. http://dataversity.org.nz/guide/practices/prioritisation/ If you are working in this area, please post an update on your work to this topic. That will help people to prepare for the workshop, and make this conversation more available to people who are interested but unable to make it to the workshop. Oh, and just to keep the lid on the can of worms: this is *not* about prioritisation approaches themselves. The variety of approaches to prioritisation that exist and the tension between them is a known problem that is outside the scope of Dataversity. Within our scope is how can we integrate prioritisation, given the diversity of approaches to it, into biodata systems.
Dan
Loading…
Privacy | Acceptable Use | Terms of Service | About OnlineGroups.Net | Contact OnlineGroups.Net
Start an OnlineGroups.Net site for easier email collaboration in your organization.
Powered by GroupServer, the open source web-based mailing list manager.