Agenda
Plots Database Interface Design Meeting

Jan 29-31, 2001

Preface – Easy to use interface tools will be essential if the plots database is to be widely accepted and used.  Development of interface tools is time consuming and cannot be completed in full with available resources. For this project database interface development will focus primary on the core plots database.

I. Meeting outcome goals:

-List of required functions for both the web-interface and the desk-top client tools.

-Bolster the section of the web site directed towards the interface design issues.

II. Issues to be addressed:

1] Background – Review of the objectives of the project and progress to date to provide a context for subsequent discussion.

-database design: Review of the ERD and supporting documentation, both for background and to identify unresolved issues

-taxonomy module: Update on development of the taxonomy module, including plans for ABI’s HDMS and the proposal to the FGDC’s Biological Nomenclature Subcommittee.

-community classification module: Update on development of this module and its interface with ABI’s HDMS.

-management scenarios: Discussion of possible scenarios for management of the NVC and similar national initiatives in other countries with the intent of anticipating features that various groups will desire in the interface tools.

-community review and feedback: Discussion of how to best obtain community feedback on the database design and who in include in the process.

2] Database queries –   Specific common queries (e.g. community type, geography, species occurrence, investigator, methodology) will be specifically coded, and capability for user design of more complex queries will be provided. Even though we defined some of the likely queries during the September meeting, let's revisit this issue and try to identify more of the queries one might issue to the database. The more we know about the possible queries before we start coding the less likely the chance of developing a tool that the end user will find inadequate for the task of accessing their data.

3] General interface functionality – General discussion of the requirements for an interface to the plots database. What are the tools people expect to have for accessing and analyzing data stored in the plots database. An incomplete list of potential modules for inclusion in the interface(s) are:

-data preparation mechanisms: At a minimum, a stand-alone program is needed for preparing data for submission to the plots database.  This would perform all necessary error and consistency checks and aid in formatting the data. Management tools will be needed for the central database managers to verify the integrity of data before embedding it in the database.

-legacy data: Presumably we should we accept legacy data only in certain data formats, and if so which formats? Which standard formats do we need to build loaders for? Likely candidates include TurboVeg, TNC Plots, NCVS, & USFS-Terra. How should taxonomic standardization be built into this process?

-query tools design: Is it important that there be multiple interfaces with varying levels of sophistication for querying the data. For the average user an interface allowing a selection based on a few attributes; and for the data miner a flexible tool that would allow the user to build any conceivable query.

-analytical tools: Should we include analytical tools for such data-related procedures as data visualization, or statistical analysis?

-download options: Capability will be provided for the export of plot data in total (all data on selected plots) or in part (e.g., essential information needed for classification development or refinement).  How would ecologists like their downloadable data prepared. Should there be an option to format the data and/or archive the data retrieved from the database. We probably need to be able to download in (1) a standard, fully articulated XML format (which could feed directly into a stand-alone version of the plots database , amonth other things), (2) formats specific to commonly-used vegetation analysis programs (e.g. TurboVeg, TNC Plots, and perhaps Terra), and (3) formats consistent with common analytical tools like Canoco, PC-ORD, & Decoda.

-authentication: The varying levels of database authentication should be discussed. What sort of criteria should be used for screening and categorizing database users? What users should have which rights. What functions should we associate with database managers as opposed to users?

-HDMS linkage: Discussion of what forms would we like the interactions with HDMS to take.

-plot interpretation: The plots database design allows for annotations of certain tables by the user community, interpretations of taxon identifications by users of plots, recording of vegetation classification assignments by users and authors, and recording of literature citations of plots.  What tools will be needed to facilitate use of these capabilities.

4] Web interface – There should be some discussion about expectations specific to the web client. To enhance the brain-storming related to this issue, John will show some of the work that he has done on the prototype web-based tools.

5] Desk-top interface – Like the web tools, there should be some discussion about the requirements that are specific to the desk-top client tools. Specifically, will this tool have a more complete suite of analytical tools, and if so what should be included.

6] Taxonomy module – What tools are essential for the funtionality the taxonomy module, given that we hope the heavy lifting to be done by ABI or ITIS?

7] The Hennekens connection – If we capture Stephan Hennekens for 2 months, what specifically would we like him to produce?

8] Development plan/tools – Discussion lead by the developers about the technologies being used for this project with the intention of broadly educating the working group about some of the enhanced software functionality related to new and developing tools. Moreover, it is hoped that such a discussion will stimulate perceptions of new interface options that may not have been considered in the past.

-XML

-Java Servlets

-embedded database(s)

9] Related tools – Possibly, there should be some time spent exploring some related tools being developed in the community. A list of some tools that might be of interest are:

Morpho - A metadata access/analysis tool developed at NCEAS

NatureServ Website - A source for conservation information

TNC Plots Database - A database management system for storing TNC plots

TurboVeg - A database management system commonly used in Europe

10] Interface layout(s) – Time permitting, we will discuss the actual layout of the interface tools

11] Planning – We will review and revise the schedule for the remainder of the project, with particular emphasis on user testing and demonstration datasets.

III. Proposed Time Frame:

Monday (1/29 - full day, 8:30-5:00):

Background

Database queries

General interface functionality

Development plan/tools

Explore related web tools

Tuesday (1/30 - full day, 8:30-5:00):

Web interface functionality

Explore related desk top tools [e.g., TurboVeg, TNC plots]

Desk-top interface functionality

Wednesday (1/31 - half day, 8:30-12:00):

Interface layout

Taxonomy module

Hennekens connection

Future planning