Practices: a Biodata Management Framework
This part of the Biodata System Guide aims to describe practices for cost-effectively improving the management of biodata. Check out the background information and discussion about this framework and the Framework Overview.
The following prototype biodata management framework was prepared as part of a TFBIS-funded project to determine the need for a tool to facilitate the assessment and improvement of biodata systems and the type of tool that is required.
| Maturity Level | |||||
| Biodata Management Area | One | Two | Three | Four | Five |
| Archiving | Adhoc or no archiving of data | Data automatically and securely archived. Users can easily discover and access archived data to assess change over time. | |||
| Consolidation & Discovery | Unknown number of systems | Internal catalogue exists | Systems use standard metadata and are listed with main external catalogues. | Internal catalogues dynamically feed into external catalogues. | Internal catalogues dynamically sync with external catalogues. |
| Data Collection Methodology | Casual observations. | Ad hoc methodology. | Well-designed methodology | Best practice followed. | National protocol applied consistently. |
| Data Exchange | Data not easily exchanged | Manual request and supply | Organisation or region-wide systems interoperable | Licence and metadata available; format for national exchange | Format suitable for international exchange |
| Data Quality Management | No way to determine data quality. | System manages data validation and authorisation workflow. | System logs show origins of datasets and allows rollback. | System manages depreciation over time. | Data quality integrated into data systems. |
| Data Standards | No documented standards. | Internally developed standard. | Authoritative Standard Imported Once | Authoritative Standard Imported Periodically | Metadata Synchronised with Authoritative Standard |
| Interpretation of biodata | Little or no interpretation of biodata | Data reported against internally developed indicators, manual calculation. | Data statistically interpolated; automatic calculation and reporting; visualisations | Legends, layers, maps, interactive models. | Data automatically reported in terms of authoritative standard indicators that are both easily digestible by public and scientists. |
| Field Data Capture | Pen and paper | Generic application on hand-held device | Basic automated field validation | Comprehensive automated field validation | Data captured in the field synchronised live with primary data-system |
| GIS Integration | Data not geospatially referenced | Data contains some geospatial references | Data contains standards-compliant geospatial references | Data can be accessed as a map layer | Data available via KML and WMS and conforms to Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards for GIS interprobility |
| In-House System Integration | No inter-system integration, or potential to integrate them. | Staff aware of and able to access data from related systems. | Datasets are well-managed and integratable | Relationships between datasets are understood. | Biodata systems are dynamically linked with in-house systems. |
| Privacy Management | No record of confidentiality considerations is associated with data. | System exists to associate all records with a public/private flag. | System exists to associate records with licence information. | System exists to associate records with the original contract for the collection of the data. | System dynamically determines permissions based on licence data. |
| Integrating Prioritisation into Data Systems | Prioritisation is done using the data that was collected with no prioritisation approach in mind. | Data supports prioritisation using a standard process. | Data supports investigation of the provenance of the data. | Biodata system automatically calculates ecological priority. | Biodata system integrated with a decision-support system. |
| Legislative compliance and legal protection data | No legal protection status associated with data. | A set of records is maintained with a specific legal protection status in mind (eg SNA DB). | Processes exist for recording the associating for all records with multiple types of legal protection status. | Data on all organisms and habitats in the area of management has information about its legal protection status. | Legislative compliance context and legal protection status fully integrated with provenance, location data and metadata. |
| Sharing biodata via the web | No web access to data. | Static documents (eg PDF) available online. | Raw data available online. | Data available in standards-compliant format with explicit licence. | Data available via web services. |
| Usability | No documentation. No UI standards. | UI Documented. | Data model and API documented. | UI optimised for data collection methods. | |
| Web-Based Community Monitoring | Community data not used | Community data sources identified and visible as web-based maps or tables | Specific records meet standards requirements and are acquired electronically | Standards of metadata and verification allow regular data transfer | Community data routinely incorporated in official data sets |
Edit this Framework
All logged in members of this site can edit this page. If you change the level descriptions on this page, please also change the description on the corresponding page relating to the area of biodata management concerned.
About the Biodata Management Framework
The framework is intended to make it easier for councils of all sizes to achieve the following tasks.
- Assess the current state of biodata management practices.
- Prioritise improvements to biodata management practices.
- Plan and take manageable steps to improve biodata management practices in specific areas.
This is a Work-In-Progress
This Framework is a work in progress and should not be relied on. It is provided by its many authors on an "as is" basis, without warranty of any kind. Its authors or publishers will not accept liability for any direct, indirect, special or consequential damages, losses or expenses howsoever arising and related to the use, or lack of use, of the data or information in it. Any loss or damage incurred through the use of the copy of the data and/or information shall be the responsibility of the user. The authors make no express or implied warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this data/information resource or its suitability for any purpose.
Licence
This Framework is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand (CC BY 3.0) licence.
TFBIS-Funding
This framework is being developed as part of a TFBIS-funded project that is being carried out by James Lambie of Horizons Regional Council, with help from Dan Randow.
Dataversity and Horizons acknowledge the financial assistance of the Terrestrial and Freshwater biodiversity Information System (TFBIS) Programme towards the preparation of the Biodata Management Framework. The TFBIS Programme is funded by the Government to help achieve the goals of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, and is administered by the Department of Conservation.
User Stories for the Framework
- A Biodiversity Office is seeking funding to improve biodata systems. She uses the framework to assess the current state of systems, to set goals for system improvements and to justify investment in the improvements.
- A Biosecurity Officer is planning to acquire or develop a new biosecurity database. She uses the framework to set criteria that the new system must meet, and to evaluate the new system as it is developed or implemented.
- A Data Manager wants to connect a biodata system to a network of biodata systems. He uses the framework and to assess and report on the system's suitability to become part of a federated system.
- A biodiversity team is trying to assess existing data so they can make better use of it. They use the framework to assess the systems used to manage the data. This improves their understanding of the quality of the data.
Limitations of the Framework
Guide Design
The Framework is made up of a series of guide. Each guide addresses a specific aspect of biodata management and currently contains:
- A Title
- User Stories
- An Owner
- A link to a discussion topic
- Levels
- Related biodata management areas
- References
Each level currently comprises:
- A title
- A checklist of criteria for attaining the level
Of the first two intended user tasks for the framework, this seems to suit the first but not the second.
- Assess the current state of biodata management practices.
- Prioritise improvements to biodata management practices.
In order to help with prioritising improvements, the framework should specify business (in the broad sense) costs and benefits of maintaining systems at each level in the framework.
Scope of Data Systems
The framework deals with how well data is handled but not with what kind of data is handled.
Also relevant is the scope of the system:
- Species
- terrestrial
- vegetation
- birds
- pests plants
- pest animals
- freshwater
- marine
- terrestrial
- Sites
- designations
- …
Function of Data Systems
The framework also fails to address the kind of tasks that are supported by data systems.
- Operations
- Reporting
- …
System Architecture
The framework can be used to assess an individual system, a set of systems or the entire set of systems in a given context.
It is also necessary to map a system architecture, especially in a world of interconnected systems.
Reference Resources
GBIF Booklets
The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has produced a number of useful booklets on specific GBIF-related topics.
NBN Guidebook
The National Biodiversity Network of the UK has produced a data guidebook.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC)
In 1995 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) contracted the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) to draft a series of handbooks on Biodiversity Information Management that are still used around the world.
Environmental Data Management Principles
The Ministry of Research, Science & Technology have developed a Vision and Principles for Managing Publicly-Funded Environmental Data. The titles of the principles are as follows.
- Data are well stored
- Advanced collection, aggregation and federation methods are commonplace
- Data are reused
- New Zealand science is a strong international collaborator
- IP, privacy and safety are well-managed
- Data can be found and interpreted
The vision and principles arise from Environment Data 2.0, the environment sector data management vision released by MoRST in 2008.
NZ Local Government Case Studies
Profiles of practices that councils use or are developing to manage biodiversity data in their region.
Log in and Edit this Page. You can view the edit history without logging in.
This site is provided by OnlineGroups.Net, where you can start your own free groups site, and powered by GroupServer, the open source web-based mailing list manager.