Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity Data

Centralized biodiversity data aggregation is too often failing societal needs due to pervasive and systemic data quality deficiencies. We argue for a novel approach that embodies the spirit of the Web (“small pieces loosely joined”) through the decentralized coordination of data across scientific la...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Beckett W. Sterner, Edward E. Gilbert, Nico M. Franz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-10-01
Series:Frontiers in Big Data
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2020.519133/full
id doaj-f50d9bd39749436fae36f25ff7f843ca
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f50d9bd39749436fae36f25ff7f843ca2020-12-18T13:22:30ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Big Data2624-909X2020-10-01310.3389/fdata.2020.519133519133Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity DataBeckett W. SternerEdward E. GilbertNico M. FranzCentralized biodiversity data aggregation is too often failing societal needs due to pervasive and systemic data quality deficiencies. We argue for a novel approach that embodies the spirit of the Web (“small pieces loosely joined”) through the decentralized coordination of data across scientific languages and communities. The upfront cost of decentralization can be offset by the long-term benefit of achieving sustained expert engagement, higher-quality data products, and ultimately more societal impact for biodiversity data. Our decentralized approach encourages the emergence and evolution of multiple self-identifying communities of practice that are regionally, taxonomically, or institutionally localized. Each community is empowered to control the social and informational design and versioning of their local data infrastructures and signals. With no single aggregator to exert centralized control over biodiversity data, decentralization generates loosely connected networks of mid-level aggregators. Global coordination is nevertheless feasible through automatable data sharing agreements that enable efficient propagation and translation of biodiversity data across communities. The decentralized model also poses novel integration challenges, among which the explicit and continuous articulation of conflicting systematic classifications and phylogenies remain the most challenging. We discuss the development of available solutions, challenges, and outline next steps: the global effort of coordination should focus on developing shared languages for data signal translation, as opposed to homogenizing the data signal itself.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2020.519133/fulldata aggregationontology alignmentbiodiversity datacommunities of practicedata intelligencedecentralization
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Beckett W. Sterner
Edward E. Gilbert
Nico M. Franz
spellingShingle Beckett W. Sterner
Edward E. Gilbert
Nico M. Franz
Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity Data
Frontiers in Big Data
data aggregation
ontology alignment
biodiversity data
communities of practice
data intelligence
decentralization
author_facet Beckett W. Sterner
Edward E. Gilbert
Nico M. Franz
author_sort Beckett W. Sterner
title Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity Data
title_short Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity Data
title_full Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity Data
title_fullStr Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity Data
title_full_unstemmed Decentralized but Globally Coordinated Biodiversity Data
title_sort decentralized but globally coordinated biodiversity data
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Big Data
issn 2624-909X
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Centralized biodiversity data aggregation is too often failing societal needs due to pervasive and systemic data quality deficiencies. We argue for a novel approach that embodies the spirit of the Web (“small pieces loosely joined”) through the decentralized coordination of data across scientific languages and communities. The upfront cost of decentralization can be offset by the long-term benefit of achieving sustained expert engagement, higher-quality data products, and ultimately more societal impact for biodiversity data. Our decentralized approach encourages the emergence and evolution of multiple self-identifying communities of practice that are regionally, taxonomically, or institutionally localized. Each community is empowered to control the social and informational design and versioning of their local data infrastructures and signals. With no single aggregator to exert centralized control over biodiversity data, decentralization generates loosely connected networks of mid-level aggregators. Global coordination is nevertheless feasible through automatable data sharing agreements that enable efficient propagation and translation of biodiversity data across communities. The decentralized model also poses novel integration challenges, among which the explicit and continuous articulation of conflicting systematic classifications and phylogenies remain the most challenging. We discuss the development of available solutions, challenges, and outline next steps: the global effort of coordination should focus on developing shared languages for data signal translation, as opposed to homogenizing the data signal itself.
topic data aggregation
ontology alignment
biodiversity data
communities of practice
data intelligence
decentralization
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2020.519133/full
work_keys_str_mv AT beckettwsterner decentralizedbutgloballycoordinatedbiodiversitydata
AT edwardegilbert decentralizedbutgloballycoordinatedbiodiversitydata
AT nicomfranz decentralizedbutgloballycoordinatedbiodiversitydata
_version_ 1724378495581159424