Forgot password? | Forgot username? | Register

Integration and visualisation of Pest monitoring data

Re: Integration and visualisation of Pest monitoring data

This is a thread for users to discuss ideas and requirements for a possible IPM Module.

There has been considerable interest in the Object Locator model to visualise the pest data on the building plans from institutes in UK, Australia and North America. I would therefore like to begin a forum discussion to capture ideas and requirements institutes may have. It needn't be just about pest monitoring, either. We all know that pest activity is influenced by a number of factors - temperature/humidity, facilities activities (e.g. drilling holes, cable laying, cleaning, etc). All this falls under the umbrella of IPM. The trouble is we have no easy mechanism to integrate this data so that the cause and effect relationships can be observed. Maybe EMu could be that tool...??
Also consider that integrating environmental data may allow us to consider other areas of collection care e.g. prevent relocation of objects where environmental conditions exceed the preferred threshold conditions for an object.

So, if KE were commissioned to develop an IPM Module linked to the Object Locator, how should it look? What should it be able to capture? How should the data be displayed? What additional functionality is required?

The Natural History Museum, London has started the ball rolling by obtaining a preliminary spec from KE. However, pest monitoring and IPM programmes are part of everyday activites within a wide range of institutes worldwide (Natural History Museums, Cultural Museums, Art Galleries, Archives etc), many who already use EMu. I would therefore like to see if it would be possible to develop a generic specification for a model that could be adopted by all. Whilst institutes may not wish to adopt a full-blow IPM module it would be possible to build on a core primary implementation at any time in the future.

Please alert colleagues who have an active role in IPM and who may not be normal visitors to this Forum to partake in this Requirements capture thread. Their input could shape the development of a useful addition to EMu that has global application.

Thanks

Dave Smith
Natural History Museum, London

Edited by: - 01-Jan-70 09:00:00

Dave Smith
Earth Sciences Data Manager
Natural History Museum, London

David Smith
Earth Sciences Data Manager
useravatar
Offline
52 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Integration and visualisation of Pest monitoring data

OK. Well let me begin by putting you in the picture of where both I and KE see this developing.

Because of its universal consistency, we see the heart of the development being for pest monitoring, which should be generic enough for any institute to adopt at any point and be able to work with it immediately without any further configuration.

Thinking of this as ‘onion-skin’ development - surrounding this core, and closely associated with it (through interaction through the Object Locator) would be layers that would provide conservators, collections managers and curators with further tools to monitor and manage the care of the collections. Specifically I’m thinking about linking in environmental monitoring data, but another suggestion has been facilities/estates activity – essentially anything you can think of which has a spatial context and which you feel would be valuable to record to analyse the ‘cause-and-effect’ influences on pest distributions and standards of collections care. These would probably more institute specific. But again, if KE are made aware of what institutes desire from these developments as early as possible, a generic infrastructure could be built to accommodate all of these features as and when they are required.

Some suggestions
1. Using EMu to automatically flag when objects are exposed to conditions outside their preferred environmental limits (such as excess RH or temperature)
2. Preventing relocation of objects to areas which would put the objects at risk, either from pests or environmental conditions.
3. Ability to capture data using barcoding (unique trap number and/or insect species)

Please find attached a brief summary of KE’s initial interpretation of the development requirements based on discussions I’ve had with them. I’ve annotated with a few questions which I would really like you to consider. Please read through and respond to this thread with any comments or suggestions for inclusion. Hopefully Andrew Brown and Bern will be able to add their technical knowledge to this discussion as required.

I really hope that those people I have met and have voiced their interest in this project proposal, plus anybody else, can feed into this information gathering process so that together we can develop a useful enhancement to EMu.

[P.S. If costs can be shared across a number of institutes then that may speed up development time too…….! (forever hopeful :-P)]

Look forward to hearing from you all.
Cheers

Dave Smith
Natural History Museum, London.

Attachment: KE Software Summary Specification for Pest monitor

Dave Smith
Earth Sciences Data Manager
Natural History Museum, London

David Smith
Earth Sciences Data Manager
useravatar
Offline
52 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.
There are 0 guests and 0 other users also viewing this topic

Board Info

Board Stats
 
Total Topics:
601
Total Polls:
0
Total Posts:
1362
User Info
 
Total Users:
834
Newest User:
Faraaz Khan
Members Online:
2
Guests Online:
274