Leave a comment
2009 May 21
Please leave a comment below. We’ll review comments during business hours per our Comment Policy. Thanks!
Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.
14 Responses
leave one →
I was searching also GLENDA . I”ll found it under Soils&Land. Thank!
this site is excellent. and epa working great. in US the air would be perfect as in forests in the near future.
This site is really extensive and will be quite helpful. I have only begun to work with it and test it out. Just a couple comments regarding areas of interest specific to our patrons:
1. When I search ‘geospatial’, I get zero hits, however the EPA Geospatial Data Access Project is in there (I can find it when I search ‘geographic’).
2. GLENDA (Great Lakes Environmental Database) is listed under Soils & Land, but it also covers Water and Air – topic under which I did not see it listed.
Thanks for compiling this Data Finder!
Data.gov is a notch higher in metadata of their own tool and a notch lower in transparency in comments received. What is Datafinder’s relationship to Data.gov? Is this effort duplicative? Or will Datafinder feed into Data.gov?
Micro
Data Finder helps people find EPA’s data sources. It defines data sources as EPA’s public websites from which numerical data can be downloaded (for example, the data download page of the Toxics Release Inventory). By contrast, Data.gov lists datasets (aka raw data) that can be downloaded directly to a computer program, spreadsheet, etc. EPA will use Data Finder to discover EPA’s datasets that can be accessed via Data.gov.
What is Datafinder’s relationship to Data.gov? Is this effort duplicative? Or will Datafinder feed into Data.gov?
User Profile is Missing – Just Noting
Blogs typically allow a user to update their profile. eg change screen name, add change icon / photo. That option is missing here. Just wondering if intential or not. Again pros and cons. Personnally I am not a big supporter of “too” easy access to update profiles. Lesson Learned – During National Dialog, a few users changed screen names mid stream. Throws a monkey wrench into validity of metrics for who is commenting on what / how many individuals are commenting / how many different individuals in favor or against a specific item. A smart blogger can really twist the statistics when total responses are low.
Job well Done
Without any test-of-time validated yard sticks to measure against, I believe this is heading in the right direction. Nearly every comment I have made here also applies to data.gov. Data.gov is a notch higher in metadata of their own tool and a notch lower in transparency in comments received.
Currently I have two major concerns – 1) if tool is overwhelmingly successful, will the operation and maintence become cost prohibitive and 2) Will lack of transparency about the processes which drive the tool haunt us later?
Transparency – Describe the review process to include or reject a data source. Add a section of definitions.
Is there a documented process? Who reviews a recomendation? Is data owner notified of any such review? Is there an appeal process if a data source is rejected? If rejected and appeal denied is there a waiting period before data source will be reconsidered? Is there a listing of sources denied and reason for denial? What is a data source? Is a data source different from a data set, or different from a data tool wich provides a value added component. What happens when data owner and data provider are different organizations?
Inconsistence in expected time to posting.
Following my previous comment, I just saw at the top of http://blog.epa.gov/data/2009/05/21/leave-a-comment/#comments it says “and post them within a day or two.” The policy says next business day.
“…posted …the next business day.” Do not back yourself into a corner.
Under Comment Policy, it is stated “Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible the next business day.” Potentially, if 300 comments arrive over the weekend, you are giving yourself 8 hours to review and post. I hope you were not thinking of going to lunch or the bathroom that day. Recomend changing wording of entire sentence to ” We anticipate your comment will be posted the next business day.” No need to mention after hours and weekends it is redundent to the previous sentence.
In a quick perusal of the site, I did not find any links to pesticide benchmarks or data (eg, the OPP office) nor the ambient water quality criteria (the OW). I do not know if they exist in a downloadable format or not, but they are both present on the web (as numerical data in tabular format).
This site is really extensive and will be quite helpful. I have only begun to work with it and test it out. Just a couple comments regarding areas of interest specific to our patrons:
1. When I search ‘geospatial’, I get zero hits, however the EPA Geospatial Data Access Project is in there (I can find it when I search ‘geographic’).
2. GLENDA (Great Lakes Environmental Database) is listed under Soils & Land, but it also covers Water and Air – topic under which I did not see it listed.
Thanks for compiling this Data Finder!
Data Finder points to environmental data sources that EPA manages. By contrast, Data.gov points to machine-readable datasets and tools for the public to download that are available from across the federal government.