Data set profile:

  1. The creator of this data set is University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’s Prairie Research Institute. They are described as a “Multidisciplinary research institute charged with providing objective research, expertise, and data on the natural and cultural resources of Illinois. “
  2. It seems they don’t have a source for their work. (Or at least I can’t find it in the mound of metadata.)
  3. “The purpose of this map is to provide a georeferenced characterization of vegetation in the early stages of Euro-American settlement. One of the research uses for the surveys nationally is for presettlement vegetation. This data can be used to analyze presettlement vegetation patterns for the purpose of determining natural community potential, productivity indexes, and patterns of natural disturbance.” (A direct quote found under the “Identification_Information” tab in metadata.)
  4. The original use was to create a more complete map of Illinois using the data collected by multiple cartographers. Now it seems to be used to study patterns and inconsistencies along Illinois’ body.
  5. The data is in map form, but the index for specific definitions of abbreviations and words is in graph form.

Data set evaluation:

  1. There is two different types of data they have collected, cartography and land definitions. The cartography has been turned into an interactive map, where you can zoom in and see the topology, rivers, and biomes. The land definitions have been input into a table, where they gathered the land code value, definition, and land cover label from the original plat map. With choosing these specific fields, they may have lost some of the original data, or had to summarize a definition.
  2. There is no no direct reference to cleaning the data, they only mention how they scanned it and corrected the things that were wrong. Though, through scanning, some things could’ve been mistranslated considering these were captured from cartographer’s notebooks. However, they mention the revisions that were needed due to data being incorrect, so it gives the impression that whatever data could potentially be incorrect would be corrected.
  3. The original data was from the early 1800s. We don’t use the same language as we did in the past, so someone trying to create a data set using that would have a notable risk of misinterpretation. In todays language, we tend to cut out a lot of the fluff they would use in the past, so in that regard, descriptors and things of the like could’ve been lost.
  4. There is a huge table of abbreviations and types of land masses, which I find very interesting. I’ve heard most of the words, though there is a few that I have never heard or heard be used to describe land.