Report prepared for the Experts Meeting Towards the Implementation of a Global Invasive Species
Information Network (GISIN), 6-8 April, 2004. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Page 34
8/30/2004
IBM-compatible personal computers with
Microsoft operating systems and Internet
Explorer 5x or higher as their browser
application. While this may not seem
important for examining database content
and development, since different browsers
react differently to code and often function
differently in production of web interfaces
(as well as usability), for collaboration
purposes, it is a useful piece of information.
Most of the databases represented are
publicly available, serve their data in HTML,
and are available in English (which is not
surprising, because these surveys were
conducted in English). However, it is
interesting that although Hindustani is one
of the top 5 spoken languages in the world
(CIA 2004; Global Reach 2004), none of the
respondents' databases have data or
datasets available in that language. This
begs the question, "Are IAS databases
written in Hindustani?" and assuming they
are, "How do we facilitate collaboration and
translate this information?"
Many of the databases represented
received sponsorship from a national entity
and therefore were nationally focused. In
addition, most of the respondents were the
actual developers of the databases. It is
hoped this will facilitate collaboration, since
the developers are intimately involved in the
knowledge and working of the databases.
Almost half of the respondents indicated
current on-going collaboration, and after this
meeting it is expected that number has
increased.
The IAS databases represented focused on
species, offered national coverage, and
included information on distribution,
taxonomic structure, and biological and
ecological information. The surveys did not
delve into the details of database structures
or the individual definitions of fields that
need to be compatible in order to achieve
data exchange. This may be the topic of a
future survey.
Although roughly a third of respondents
indicated that they are using ITIS as a
taxonomic standard, it was shocking to
discover that more than a third do not
reference any taxonomic standard.
Taxonomies may vary between countries
and sometimes between regions within one
country, which can cause confusion and
misinformation.
For successful collaboration and exchange
of information, the ability to cross-walk
between GISIN standards is imperative.
This was recognized by respondents, who
agreed that one of the top future
development issues is 'standards.'
Agreement and voluntary compliance with
taxonomic standards, nomenclature, and
well documented cross-walks are needed to
assure the success of GISIN. Data cannot
be exchanged in a meaningful way unless
the relationship between the fields of
different information systems is understood
and clearly documented.
Respondents indicated that the most
important search criterion was "scientific
name" and the most important search
results "fact sheets / species profiles."
Instead of being specifically focused on
serving one or two data types, these results
indicate that the databases are including as
much information as they can in the species
records. Fact Sheets are seen as the all
inclusive report on a species that by
definition should include a summary of all
known/available information on that species.
It is interesting that interactive maps were
more commonly included in the information
systems than were non-interactive maps,
which indicates a high level of GIS
development. However, the information
types "research" and "expertise" were
towards the bottom of the list in spite of
being labeled as "existing resources that
should be built upon" by the CBD. Genetic
information is also under-represented, but it
is interesting that it is represented at all,
given the fact that geneticists are very rarely
 |
 |
 |