Key database characteristics (task 2a)The final document version of the database survey document can be downloaded below. A draft of the on-line survey will now be drawn up, after which comments can be received and possible changes made, before the survey is launched. Please read down the page to view previous versions of the Key Database Characteristics Document, and to review the progress of this task. The second draft of the Key Database Characteristics document was circulated for comment from the working group members of the UNEP/SETAC LCI. The feedback received can be viewed here. Version 3 of the Key Database Characteristics document, compiled in response to feedback received from WG members (notably R Frischknecht and C Bauer) and discussion at the SETAC/UNEP meetings in Portland. The Key Database Characteristics document (ver 2). Document summarising the comments received on the first version (as well as Julia and Marc's responses to those comments):
First draft of the database characteristics document, and the version with comments/edits provided by Pippa (using track-changes in the document):
The Key Database Characteristics document was drawn up from efforts made during the definition study of the inventory programme: You can follow the email "discussion" leading up to key database characteristics document, and the progress so far below. Please add your comments at the end (or send an email to the group). Email from Marc-Andree Wolf, 11/05/2004 19:16 Dear Colleagues of the Task Force "Database registry", as a follow-up of a small, first TF-meeting in Prague, I herewith send to you three documents, which have been developed in course of the preparatory work of the initiative in 2002. These reflect the views of three authors on which database characteristics to include in the registry or (in case of the attached very detailed xls-sheet I had prepared that time) how far a LCI database description could go in principle. Pippa will send round another document on results from discussions on database characteristics that time. Please have a look into these documents as a starting point of our upcoming work. As suggested by Pippa in Prague, I will take responsibility for the database characteristics issue in our work, unless there are contradictions from your side. I will prepare a new document as a synthesis of the past work in order to have only one concrete starting point for our work instead of three and since the boundary conditions for the database registry changed a little bit in the meanwhile (e.g. EIO databases should be covered, too). I will do my best to set up an appropriate starting document for focussed discussion on which information to include in the registry and will distribute this document within our Task Force within the next 10 days. Some information on my professional background related to the database registry issue: At IKP I was and am involved in GaBi database definition and build-up and am familiar also with several other process-LCI databases in detail (e.g. EcoInvent, APME). In an on-going project I am working on EIO-Hybrid-LCI databases as well. In the UNEP/SETAC LCI definition study I was main author of the reports on "Data availablility and database characteristics" and "Ability to validate LCIs". In autumn 2003 I was co-organiser of the UNEP/SETAC LCI work shop on data quality at FZK in Karlsruhe. Looking forward to successfully develop together a user-oriented database registry web-page! Best regards and hope to meet you all in person Marc Note: the attachments to this email can now be found above. Email from Pippa Notten, 12/05/2004 10:37 Dear All To complete the history of earlier efforts towards defining database characteristics, please find attached the background document and agenda of a workshop that was organised in the very early days of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (May 2002). The document in general (and the list of database characteristics on pg 2) was drawn up primarily by Greg Norris, but with review/input from the workshop committee (Raul Carlson, Pankaj Bhatia, Gjalt Huppes, Bo Weidema, Atsushi Inaba, Angeline de Beaufort and Alejandro Pablo Arena). Sending you this document allows me to properly explain the authorship of the document "Characteristic of LCI databases (P Notten).doc" (circulated in Marc's email). This was an effort to draw the Vienna workshop list and that in the "database types.doc" by Gjalt Huppes (also sent in Marc's email) together into a format where they could easily be filled out in a survey (i.e. only yes/no answers, or selections from a list of options). It also tries to capture the bare minimum of information necessary. I think this is a good contrast to Marc's very comprehensive spreadsheet, and gives us good starting point for our discussions. Best wishes Note: the attachment to this email can now be found at Vienna workshop (May 2002) Email from Marc-Andree Wolf, 13/05/2004 12:20 Dear Coleagues of the Database registry, as a follow up to Pippas last email I want to explain a possible misunderstanding and avoid doubble work: None of the three files I had send around in my last email was thought to be a starting point for our work or would be a suitable one. Also the extended xls-file I authored was never indented to be a draft for the registry, but was exploring PRINCIPAL possibilities for database characteristics. As I wrote in my last email, I will prepare a synthesize of the existing material as a good starting document. We will send it round within next week in order to receive and include your feedback, comments etc. Best regards Marc Email from Julia Pflieger, 25/05/2004 19:18 Dear all, according to the email of my colleague Marc Andree Wolf from 13.05. I send around the "synthesized" LCI database characterisation document as starting document for further detailing and discussion. As I will be in charge of this topic - in addition to Marc Andree - please send me your feedback / comments on the attached document. If you have furthermore any questions on this document please do not hesitate to call me. Best wishes Julia Note: the attachment to this email can now be found at Characteristics of LCI Databases (IKP 25/05/04) Email from Pippa Notten, 06/08/2004 16:55 Dear Julia, Marc and the rest of our team Thank you Marc and Julia, for the excellent starting document for our discussions, and my apologies for taking so long to comment (summer holidays in Europe...). As you will see, I have commented quite extensively, as I am obviously seeing this from quite a different angle. For me, "key" database characteristics should be not more than 10 top-level bites of information, which can then be supported by a second level of greater detail, e.g. is the database primarily on materials, processes or products, and then the detail on which ones it actually includes. Given my different point of view on this, I would REALLY like to know what the rest of the team think. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, lets have a discussion on this... I think it may be valuable if we mentally take a step back, and ask who is our audience (who are we trying to inform?), and what key bits of information are we trying to give them? I am aware that my particular reference frame (user from LCI information-poor Southern Africa), shapes what I first look for in a database - how much will it cost me, is it available disaggregated so I can adapt it to reflect Southern African conditions (e.g. according to technology rather than "European average"). Most of all, I want an overview, so I can quickly and easily see what is "out there", and if it is at all adaptable to my purposes. With an array of backgrounds in our group, it would be extremely interesting if we could all list and compare the top 5 things we want to know about an LCI database. I therefore request, with many apologies to Marc and Julia since I have not done so sooner, if you can extend our deadline for comments for another week or so.We are looking at a deadline of mid-Sept to finalise this amongst ourselves to the extent we feel happy to circulate it to the other task forces, so I think we have enough time. This is such an essential component of our work, I think it would be unwise to rush it. Especially, I welcome "comments on my comments" in the attached document. For me, this is often the best way to get discussion going. Also, I will give some thought over the weekend to my "top 5" and circulate accordingly. I look forward to seeing yours. Thanks, again, to Marc and Julia (for starting us off, and understanding in my slowing down the process). Looking forward to a fruitful discussion. Best wishes Note: the attachment to this email can now be found at Database characteristics, Pippa comments 6/8/04 Email from Pippa Notten, 12/08/2004 12:23 Dear team Here are some further thoughts on the key characteristics/database registry, to hopefully stimulate an email discussion, or get us thinking before the tele-meeting. Following up my previous email, I have been thinking a bit about our intended audience. It became apparent to me that to know clearly where we are headed (i.e. what key bits of information do we wish to include about each database), we first need to formulate a "vision" for the registry. i.e. What should it look like? What do we want it to achieve? For me, I see two objectives for the registry. Firstly, it should provide a quick overview, a snapshot of "what is out there". Secondly, it should provide a user with what they need to know before choosing a database. Two quite different levels of information. My "vision" for the registry is therefore something along the lines of an "overview matrix", visually capturing the key aspects of all included databases, with an ability to delve into greater detail on each key aspect. I have attached a (purely fictitious) example of the sort of thing I am picturing. Each block in the matrix could be a link to the deeper level of information, i.e. the tables in Marc/Julia's document (each block essentially summarising in a short phrase the underlying content). Otherwise, the just database name at the top could be a link to the "key characteristics" (as laid out by Marc and Julia). What do you think? Points for discussion: How do you picture the registry? Do you agree/disagree with a layered approach? If agree, what would you include in your top layer? (see example list in doc) What do you think is appropriate to include at the detailed level? (see Marc/Julia's document) Look forward to a good discussion! Best wishes Pippa Note: The attatchment to this email can be downloaded here: Email from Julia Pflieger, 27/08/04 11:42 Dear all, please find attached - as promised - the revised and combined document on LCI database characterisation for use as starting point for our telephone discussion. As asked by Pippa we extended the deadline for comments for another three weeks. Based on the comments received up to this week we revised the document, please see the attached file "Characteristics of LCI Databases comments incl.doc". Furthermore we prepared another document (see attached file "Database registry_Comments and Response IKP.doc") including comments and responses refering to the feedback received on the structure and content of the former document "Characteristics of LCI Databases IKP.doc". Looking forward to talking to you in September! Attachments: Characteristics of LCI Databases comments incl.doc Email from Gyorgi Cicas, 14/09/2004 16:58 Dear Philippa: I have reviewed the LCI Database registry document you sent. Thanks for the opportunity. The document is well-written, and I believe it will serve its purpose. The one comment I have pertains to the difficulty in obtaining feedback from users on two items: use of recycled materials, and use of data quality indicators. On p. 9, the question asks about the input of recycled materials and the "credit system" used in assessing the credit given to recycled materials. I am not sure this explanation is going to be easy. Similarly, the description of data quality indicator(s) on p. 13 will be challenging for the user. Unfortunately, I do not have a good idea as to how these obstacles could be eliminated. I guess we will just have to trust that the user will do a good job on these questions/answers. I hope the above helps. Best regards, Gyorgyi Email from Julia Pflieger, 21/09/2004 19:15 Dear Pippa, for your information: I registered on the unep.greenriver.org/LCI website. With respect to the comments of Gyorgyi on the database characteristics document we suggest to have one fictitious example on the website covering all data entry fields to demonstrate and simplify the procedure of database registry for the user. In addition there were no further comments on the document, i.e. this is the version to be circulated to the other TFs. Furthermore I have one comment on your telephone conference notes with respect to the following paragraph: "Task 2: Key database characteristics Some discussion on whether key database characteristics (as currently conceived) are suited to all data types and users, i.e. whilst current document captures very well the key features of large, coherent LCI databases, they are less suited to a single inventory (e.g. from an industry organisation) or to a developing-LCA-country user (where LCA is applied in a less strict sense). Note from Pippa: Do we wish to include the latter, or are we about big databases only? This needs to be resolved. Suggested for discussion in our next conference call."
Best regards |
 |
