data sharing

[Hugh Wilson]

Its remarkable to me that this issue becomes critical only when the
dicussion turns to collections data in digital form.  Curators seem
to have no problem with the condition of specimen-based data that is
open for public inspection but tucked away in cases.  Things get
dicy, however, when this moves from the cases into the 'commons'.

The telephone company publishes a phone book every year and this
carries errors and omissions at the time of printing which increase
as the year progresses.  However, most of the information present is
correct and clearly useful.  Annual revisions of this hardcopy
document - with no audit trail - result in an improved and fully
functional product.  Most users are not concerned about tracking
changes from year to year.  Most of the data associated with
systematic collections is accurate and useful and my point relates to
priorities.  What is the 1st order of business?  Is it best to get
the information, warts and all, computerized and on-line as soon as
possible?  Or, should we invest in endless 'workshops',  'symposia',
and general discussion regarding the development of complex data
management and expression  systems and 'standards' *before* the
computerization effort begins.  The consensus seems to be with the
latter approach and, as a result, there is - at this point in time -
not much (relative to the potential) data to share.

On  3 Dec 98 at 10:07, Peter Rauch <anamaria at GRINNELL.BERKELEY.EDU>
wrote:

> Date:          Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:07:53 -0800
> Reply-to:      Peter Rauch <anamaria at GRINNELL.BERKELEY.EDU>
> From:          Peter Rauch <anamaria at GRINNELL.BERKELEY.EDU>
> Subject:       Re: data sharing
> To:            Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM

> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Hugh Wilson wrote:
> > The 'citation' problem requires some sort of solution, maybe via firm
> > 'versioning' of old datasets to an archive or, perhaps, by including
> > some sort of record-specific 'edit trail' that would allow the user
> > to track change.
>
> I think provision of audit trails are a _critically_ important issue in
> the design and implementation of collections databases.
>
> >  But, if 'value' relates to public usage, then
> > priorities should be focused on the broader (non scientific)
> > potential user base which, I think, could care less about reference
> > citation.
>
> Can you explain your comment, please. In particular, I think whether a
> non-scientific (public?) user cares less or more about audit trails
> (edit trails?, reference citations?) will more reflect that user's [lack
> of] understanding of the problems with using non-data (i.e., data that
> were once believed to be accurate, and are now known to not be the
> [correct] data).
>
> "Value", as a criterion of a collection, should not derive from "public
> usage", but from the benefits accrued from that public usage. It doesn't
> matter how much the data are used (by the public or by science) if the
> data lead to bad policy, bad decisions, results based on fictitious
> data.
>
> Who are these "non-scientific" users --users who don't need to care
> about whether the data they used are real or fictitious? Should these
> users be the concern of (be serviced by) the museum collection manager?
> Should the museum collection manager design her information system to
> provide (some sort of) data to people who could care less whether the
> data are real or fictitious?
>
> Perhaps a collection can finesse its responsibility to provide an audit
> trail by stating to each person who accesses its database "Beware: the
> data you are about to use may contain errors; any use to which you put
> these data will thus be suspect to the degree that it is sensitive to
> the use of defective data. This collection will not be responsible for
> any conclusions or uses based on our data."
>
> Even a collection which institutes a super audit trail system should
> make the above disclaimer. But, at least this latter will be able to add
> "You may revisit our database at any time, to determine whether any of
> the data you used has changed."
>
> But, maybe I didn't understand your point. So, please, elaborate.
> Peter
>

Hugh D. Wilson
Texas A&M University - Biology
h-wilson at tamu.edu (409-845-3354)
http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilson/homepage.html