4,707
edits
IDigBio Workshops: Difference between revisions
→Calendar Year 2018
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
! scope="col" class="unsortable" width="25%"| Links | ! scope="col" class="unsortable" width="25%"| Links | ||
|-style="vertical-align:top;" | |-style="vertical-align:top;" | ||
|- | |||
|valign="top"|08/30/2018- 8/30/2018 | |||
|valign="top"|[https://www.idigbio.org/content/spnhc-2018-and-tdwg-2018-first-joint-meeting Symposium Challenges Implementing Collections Data Quality Feedback: synthesizing the community experience] | |||
|valign="top"|Much data quality (DQ) feedback is now available to data providers from aggregators of collections specimen and related data. Similarly, transcription centres and crowdsourcing platforms also provide data that must be assessed and often manipulated before uploading to a local database and subsequently published with aggregators. Sharing DQ integration experiences can help reveal risks and opportunities. Discovering others have the same conundrums helps develop a community of belonging and may assist in removing duplication of effort. It is important to leverage the knowledge and experience of those who are currently validating data to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. Documenting and classifying these challenges also facilitates motivation and community building by informing those who would tackle these challenges. In this case, talks from aggregators and data providers give all of us a chance to learn from their stories about implementing and integrating DQ feedback. | |||
|valign="top"| | |||
*[[SPNHC-TDWG2018_Symposium_-_Challenges_Implementing_Collections_Data_Quality_Feedback|Wiki]] | |||
*Workshop Report | |||
|- | |- | ||
|valign="top"|08/25/2018- 9/02/2018 | |valign="top"|08/25/2018- 9/02/2018 | ||