Talk:ADBC Summit 2017

From iDigBio
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PLEASE USE THIS PAGE FOR DISCUSSION OF YOUR THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SUMMIT

Evaluation of last year's Summit

  • Full Report: https://www.idigbio.org/sites/default/files/workshop-presentations/summit6/2016_Summit_Report_Final.pdf
  • Executive Summary (with highlight added by David Jennings):
    • The New TCN Orientation was better received than Summit V orientation. We received no negative comments about jargon and acronyms; in the past, use of those overwhelmed new participants’ and contributed to their sense of being outsiders. This suggests that iDigBio’s effort to avoid jargon and to define acronyms in presentations and in the program were successful. Comments do suggest, however, that the orientation might be even more effective if held at the beginning, rather than at the end, of the day (or online prior to the Summit), and that some of the information regarding the iDigBio website would be better conveyed via hands-on activities (e.g., creating an iDigBio account). There were also requests for appearances by NSF and iDigBio PIs and a meet-and-greet with the iDigBio staff, and greater emphasis placed on PENs.
    • Most respondents found the presentations by NSF and iDigBio to be informative; however, comments suggest that NSF, iDigBio, and BCoN are not doing a good job communicating plans for the future of biodiversity collections digitization.
    • The 5-minute structured format for the TCN presentations also appears to have been effective. The brevity of the presentations kept participants’ interest level high, and the format made it easy to draw comparisons across TCNs. The most frequent criticism of the format was that it was too constraining; respondents expressed interest in learning more about lessons learned and successful approaches unique to specific TCNs as opposed to metrics and statistics.
    • Most of the discussion sessions were also effective. There was some overlap across some sessions, which frustrated some participants and also wasted time; at least some sessions would have benefited from an orientation that provided an overview of current status, important issues, and terminology.
    • A majority of respondents participated in at least one ad hoc or special interest meeting during the Summit; most found the meetings valuable and believe it important to include time for those ad hoc meetings in the schedule. Thus, if possible, future Summits should set aside time for these meetings.
    • The meeting organization worked well. As in prior years, some participants were frustrated by concurrent discussion sessions, and new members of the community would have appreciated structured opportunities to meet up with representatives from more senior TCNs.
    • With respect to Summit resources, most respondents checked the wiki at least once prior to the Summit. During the Summit, participants relied equally heavily on the wiki and the interactive pdf. If given a choice of just once resource, participants indicated a strong preference for an interactive pdf over only the wiki, a printed program, or a phone app. Thus, iDigBio should continue to provide both the wiki and the pdf and consider a single-page two-sided printed agenda.
    • The overall meeting venue was rated highly, with iDigBio members more enthusiastic than other participants. The reception at the aquarium was highly praised. Most who offered comments liked some aspects of TechTown (e.g., “fun,” “creative,” “collaborative”), but this was offset by problems with acoustics and physical layout. Similarly, Chattanooga received mixed reviews, although participants did appreciate the ease of moving among hotels, meeting spaces, and restaurants.
    • With respect to Summit impacts, most respondents reported increased knowledge of iDigBio, the national digitization effort, and TCNs. Most TCN and iDigBio affiliates anticipate increased communication with others at the meeting, as well as possible new collaborations. Another benefit of participating in the Summit noted by participants was the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations with NSF staff.
    • The Summit received a median grade of ‘A’ and an average grade of A- (range = C to A+).
    • We asked participants to identify potential venues for future Summits and to suggest ways to add value to the meeting in light of the fact that participants will increasingly need to cover some of the costs. Most of the locations suggested were in the Western U.S. In terms of adding value, there was a high interest in training and workshops, with the greatest interest shown in workshops related to tools, data, and research use.


Ideas for Summit Content

Discussion Group Topic Ideas

  • Future workshops
  • WeDigBio
  • IsoBank
  • Ecologists -- Deb is organizing
  • Morphosource
  • iDigPaleo
  • BCoN
    • Data Integration, attribution and interoperability -- Andy Bentley is organizing; plenary session on Thursday after lunch
      • "Collections, aggregators, data re-packagers, publishers, researchers, and external user groups form a complex web of data connections and pipelines. This forms the natural history infrastructure essential for collections use by an ever increasing and diverse external user community. We have made great strides in developing the individual actors within this system and we are now well poised to utilize these capabilities to address big picture questions. We need to continue work on the individual aspects, but the focus now needs to be on integration of the functionality provided by the actors involved in the pipeline to facilitate the transfer of data between them with as few human interventions as possible. In order for the system to function efficiently and to the benefit of all parties, information, data, and resources need not only to be integrated efficiently but flow in the reverse direction (attribution) to facilitate collections advocacy and sustainability. For instance, there are benefits to collections from inclusion into aggregators and subsequent use by researchers and publishers that are not being realized. The Biodiversity Collections Network (BCoN) is planning a program of workshops in conjunction with other groups to perform a needs assessment to identify gaps and problems in the data pipeline and explore future steps in coordinating efforts, providing solutions and standardizing tools and methods. This talk will explore this landscape and highlight BCoN’s efforts in this regard while soliciting participation from actors in the pipeline and the community at large."
    • Legal Issues with Collections -- Linda Ford is organizing; must be late Thursday or early Friday due to travel
    • Conservationists -- Anna Monfils is organizing
    • BLUE -- Anna Monfils is organizing
    • Broadening Participation -- Anna Monfils
    • Small Collections -- Anna Monfils
  • Building a local Carpentries community -- Matt and Deb are organizing
    • "The capacity to manage, manipulate, and _______ is important to modern research programs. Ensuring research staff and students have access to the education and learning opportunities to maintain their development is the role of PIs, program heads, and institutional directors. Peer teaching and learning communities provide a learner-lead environment that is easy to foster and support in parallel with formal structures like academic curricula and professional development. We will describe our experiences at UF and FSU developing a community centered around the Data and Software Carpentry organizations to advance the informatics capacity of our organizations."
    • Co contributors with this scope: UF libraries, UFII, UFBI, FSU idiginfo, FSU libraries, UF Carpentries Club
    • Left out: UF DSI, UF ACM, R Meetup, etc. They'd be mentioned as "Oh, and you need these things too."

Training Module Ideas

  • Georeferencing
  • Photography 101
  • Communications Boot Camp

Demo Ideas

Poster Ideas

  • BISON - Elizabeth Martin has a poster she can present, assuming BISON is funded in FY18

Ad hoc meetings

  • Specify -- Jim Beach has requested a Specify meeting. Given the unique campaign Specify is on this year with trying to monetize Specify, he would like to engage with Summit attendees to apprise them of our progress and maybe have some kind of session to get their ideas and feedback.
  • Symbiota -- Neil Cobb has requested one of the earliest slots on Thursday (1:15 PM) for a Symbiota meeting. The plan is to review advancements in research and database tools that would likely be relevant to other sessions on Thursday and Friday.
  • iDigBio graduate student group -- Adania Flemming has requested a closed meeting for her group.

Field Trip Ideas

Self-Guided Tours/Activities

Retrieved from "http://www.idigbio.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:ADBC_Summit_2017&oldid=25305"