Charles Roper
2013-12-03 20:31:37 UTC
The Biological Records Centre (BRC; http://www.brc.ac.uk/) is carrying out
a consultation for Natural England, with funding from the Defra Fund for
Biodiversity Recording in the Voluntary Sector. They would like to hear
from people who are actively engaged with wildlife recording schemes and/or
local environmental records centres, and who carry out a role as a verifier
and/or a data manager in such schemes and centres. They would be grateful
for your response by 31 December 2013. Please pass this on to anyone within
your respective groups who does any form of record checking work.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pFQiFi50jWwbuAaaaJLEABtZggrBAkGQHhhHbVe4sfo/viewform
If anyone would like to discuss the consultation, or any issues surrounding
it, please feel free either here or via the private email of Penny and I. A
good old phone call would also be welcome.
Patrick Roper has already pointed out to me that use of the term
"verification" is problematic. To verify
(definition<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verify>)
something means to prove by evidence, to ascertain (to find out for
*certain*), or to conclusively determine the truth. Given this definition,
very few records *at all* could truly be verified. Only those records with
voucher specimens and arguably photos (although only for some species, and
they can be faked) could be verified. In the strictest sense, only where
the verifier is there in the field with the recorder and can confirm the
specimen taken can a record be verified. What, I think, is meant by
"verification" is actually closer to "checking", "corroborating" or
"lending support" based on, primarily, expert knowledge and knowledge of
the recorder; i.e., qualitative judgement rather than strictly objective.
This may sound like semantic hair-splitting, but to use the verb "verify"
lends undue objective weight to what work has actually been done *and is
able to be done* on a record. For the end-user of data, it sends the wrong
signals that can lead to faulty expectations and assumptions.
The following article by Jeni Tennison<http://theodi.org/team/jeni-tennison>,
Technical Director of the Open Data Institute, makes for interesting and
insightful reading and is related to the above. I was certainly nodding
furiously as I read it. Here is the closing thought:
Making data open for other people to look at provides lots more
opportunities for people to spot errors. This can be terrifying ? who wants
people to know that they are running their organisation based on
bad-quality data? ? but those who have progressed through the five stages
of data grief find hope in another developer maxim:
* Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.*
*? Linus?s Law, The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond*
The more people look at your data, the more likely they are to find the
problems within it. The secret is to build in feedback mechanisms which
allow those errors to be corrected, so that you can benefit from those eyes
and increase your data quality to what you thought it was in the first
place.
Here is the full article: http://theodi.org/blog/five-stages-of-data-grief
Charles
*Charles Roper*
Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre | http://sxbrc.org.uk | 01273 497554
Sussex Wildlife Trust is a company limited by guarantee under the Companies
Act. Registered in England, Company No. 698851. Registered Charity No.
207005. VAT Registration No. 191 305969. Registered Office: Woods Mill,
Henfield, West Sussex BN5 9SD. Telephone 01273 492630
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sxbrc.org.uk/pipermail/adastra_lists.sxbrc.org.uk/attachments/20131203/91ff3a7c/attachment.html>
a consultation for Natural England, with funding from the Defra Fund for
Biodiversity Recording in the Voluntary Sector. They would like to hear
from people who are actively engaged with wildlife recording schemes and/or
local environmental records centres, and who carry out a role as a verifier
and/or a data manager in such schemes and centres. They would be grateful
for your response by 31 December 2013. Please pass this on to anyone within
your respective groups who does any form of record checking work.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pFQiFi50jWwbuAaaaJLEABtZggrBAkGQHhhHbVe4sfo/viewform
If anyone would like to discuss the consultation, or any issues surrounding
it, please feel free either here or via the private email of Penny and I. A
good old phone call would also be welcome.
Patrick Roper has already pointed out to me that use of the term
"verification" is problematic. To verify
(definition<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verify>)
something means to prove by evidence, to ascertain (to find out for
*certain*), or to conclusively determine the truth. Given this definition,
very few records *at all* could truly be verified. Only those records with
voucher specimens and arguably photos (although only for some species, and
they can be faked) could be verified. In the strictest sense, only where
the verifier is there in the field with the recorder and can confirm the
specimen taken can a record be verified. What, I think, is meant by
"verification" is actually closer to "checking", "corroborating" or
"lending support" based on, primarily, expert knowledge and knowledge of
the recorder; i.e., qualitative judgement rather than strictly objective.
This may sound like semantic hair-splitting, but to use the verb "verify"
lends undue objective weight to what work has actually been done *and is
able to be done* on a record. For the end-user of data, it sends the wrong
signals that can lead to faulty expectations and assumptions.
The following article by Jeni Tennison<http://theodi.org/team/jeni-tennison>,
Technical Director of the Open Data Institute, makes for interesting and
insightful reading and is related to the above. I was certainly nodding
furiously as I read it. Here is the closing thought:
Making data open for other people to look at provides lots more
opportunities for people to spot errors. This can be terrifying ? who wants
people to know that they are running their organisation based on
bad-quality data? ? but those who have progressed through the five stages
of data grief find hope in another developer maxim:
* Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.*
*? Linus?s Law, The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond*
The more people look at your data, the more likely they are to find the
problems within it. The secret is to build in feedback mechanisms which
allow those errors to be corrected, so that you can benefit from those eyes
and increase your data quality to what you thought it was in the first
place.
Here is the full article: http://theodi.org/blog/five-stages-of-data-grief
Charles
*Charles Roper*
Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre | http://sxbrc.org.uk | 01273 497554
Sussex Wildlife Trust is a company limited by guarantee under the Companies
Act. Registered in England, Company No. 698851. Registered Charity No.
207005. VAT Registration No. 191 305969. Registered Office: Woods Mill,
Henfield, West Sussex BN5 9SD. Telephone 01273 492630
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sxbrc.org.uk/pipermail/adastra_lists.sxbrc.org.uk/attachments/20131203/91ff3a7c/attachment.html>