SPNHC-TDWG2018 Symposium - Challenges Implementing Collections Data Quality Feedback: Difference between revisions

<p>'''[https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.2.26003 BISS Symposium Abstract] (brief version shared here):''' 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. In order to facilitate broader DQ information use aggregators (GBIF, ALA, iDigBio, VertNet) and others, through the TDWG BDQ Interest Group, are harmonizing the DQ information provided - transforming part of the DQ feedback process. But, collections sharing data face challenges when trying to evaluate and integrate the information changes offered (by aggregators) for given records in local collection management systems and collection databases. 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.</p>

<p>After our symposium, on Friday at lunch, we're hosting a SPNHC Special Interest Group (SIG) Meeting to get the DQ feedback conversation started with '''all participants present and remote!''' You can find us in room: Burns 7 (88) if you are in Dunedin with us.</p>