Collectory - IEK data provider type

[RobinaSanderson]

As a user of occurrence records
I want to be know whether the records of a data provider are associated with an indigenous organisation or group
So that I can get a picture of the contribution of IEK to the ALA

Requirements:

1. Provide the ability to set a data provider type
2. Possible data provider types are:

• Indigenous
• Collections community
• Citizen science
• Government

3. A data provider can be more than one type
4. Ensure occurrence records can be filtered by data provider type (not sure if this requires changes to biocache and biocollect as well - TBC)

[m-hope]

We need to differentiate between the provider and the type of data they provide. Eg: a Data provider might not be a (recognised) indigenous organisation, but (as an aggregator) provide data that is indigenous in origin (or visa versa).

[RobinaSanderson]

So does it make more sense to tag the dataset as IEK rather than the data provider?

[elywallis]

Do you mean the Data Resource? We have to tag an 'entity' as IEK. It would be silly to tag individual occurrence records as IEK - the IEK bit comes in who collected them not the occurrence record data per se. Otherwise every species that's native to Australia would be tagged as IEK and that makes no sense.
Nat's wish is to be able to see records that were recorded by Indigenous rangers / Indigenous citizen science programs etc so we need to be tagging an entity not a data point.

[NatRB]

Hi All, Yes I agree with Ely that we are interested in who collects the data as that determines if it is IEK data. Cheers Nat From: Elycia Wallis [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Friday, 10 May 2019 12:06 PM To: AtlasOfLivingAustralia/ala-collectory <ala-collectory@noreply.github.com> Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [AtlasOfLivingAustralia/ala-collectory] Collectory - IEK data provider type (#17) Do you mean the Data Resource? We have to tag an 'entity' as IEK. It would be silly to tag individual occurrence records as IEK - the IEK bit comes in who collected them not the occurrence record data per se. Otherwise every species that's native to Australia would be tagged as IEK and that makes no sense. Nat's wish is to be able to see records that were recorded by Indigenous rangers / Indigenous citizen science programs etc so we need to be tagging an entity not a data point. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#17 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACWIAMSYJBTRNKHG6YBV4ALPUTYBZANCNFSM4HJRNZOA>.

[RobinaSanderson]

OK, agree that we can assume that any data resource (dataset) supplied by indigenous individuals or body will be IEK data, but can we assume that any data resource supplied by an individual or group that does not identify as IEK is not?

To be clear, tagging data providers as IEK will mean that occurrence records datasets (dataresources) supplied via a third party (state government body or citizen science group for example) won't be identified as IEK unless the organisation/person that directly supplies the data to ALA is IEK.

Being able to tag a set of data as IEK might provide more granularity?

[elywallis]

I think we're diving too far down the rabbit hole in asking that question where the logical endpoint is asking individual collectors to tag themselves as indigenous. And I don't think that's appropriate. There are going to be indigenous people on staff in government departments, museums and herbaria and I don't think that the point of this exercise is to identify every single occasion where an occurrence record is collected by someone who is indigenous. The point is to be able to show, in a general way, that particular data resources are identifiable as collected by indigenous groups (e.g. ranger groups) and that's as far as it needs to go.