Display all Non-Classification Terms (was Require source authority in non-classification data)

[Jegelewicz]

From Taxonomy Committee Meeting 2018-10-24

Add source authority mandatory

It would be very helpful for anyone looking at taxa to know from where the information was derived. The Committee suggests that this field be required when creating any classification.

However, in the illustration above, the actual authority is ITIS and we also believe that the date is important and should be required as well. Finally, a link to the source (if available) would be a good addition to this information.

[dustymc]

I am incredibly hesitant to require anything other than the name itself. I'd be happy to reconsider if we had a solution for what happens when eg, we get a {pick something new} collection with a few tens of thousands of new names.

It's also not at all clear to me what a source is. Source of the name, the classification (in which case it should not longer be eg, ITIS once we change something), something else, ???

http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTTAXON_TERM

[sharpphyl]

Our committee thought it would be helpful to require a source authority - or at least require the creator to consciously override and create the taxon without a source authority. It's a free-form field, so it can be a source like WoRMS or ITIS or a reputable website etc. We also think requiring (or strongly encouraging) the author would help with ambiguous taxa that can be in multiple orders or even kingdoms. At the least, can the form preload the fields Source Authority and Author the same way it preloads nomenclatural code even if they aren't in red and mandatory.

[Jegelewicz]

It's also not at all clear to me what a source is. Source of the name, the classification (in which case it should not longer be eg, ITIS once we change something), something else, ???

http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTTAXON_TERM

See updated code table definition.

[dustymc]

Gotcha. I'm fine with that - I wouldn't use that form if I had to create 20K starfish or something so I don't think that'll be a problem from my POV.

1) Shall we go required (in the form) or just "strongly suggested"? 2) Can we figure out documentation - if we're going to require something we should probably be able to clearly define it. 3) https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1698 (Pretty please?)

[campmlc]

1. I vote for "required".
2. We are tackling documentation prior to the webinar.
3. If we try this, and it doesn't work, can we keep a backup copy of the old model?

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 8:32 PM dustymc notifications@github.com wrote:

Gotcha. I'm fine with that - I wouldn't use that form if I had to create 20K starfish or something so I don't think that'll be a problem from my POV.

1. Shall we go required (in the form) or just "strongly suggested"?
2. Can we figure out documentation - if we're going to require something we should probably be able to clearly define it.

3. 1698 https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1698 (Pretty

   please?)

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1760#issuecomment-432892578, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOH0hOl4lOjQNDhZdlvgy9hEm-PI2Y5Iks5uoSKogaJpZM4X5JLC .

[dustymc]

There are no model changes that I'm aware of being proposed anywhere - this is all form.

Shall we do whatever we do to the form to the classification bulkloader (and so indirectly to the hierarchical editor) as well?

[Jegelewicz]

1. I like required as well and if we could somehow formalize the "date accessed" and even add a link to the resource if available that would make my day.

2. I changed the definition in the code table to:

Source of the taxonomic classification. Recommended sources include WoRMS, The Reptile Database, ITIS, FishBase, AlgaeBase, Paleobiology Database. Other sources are allowed. Please be specific and add the date the source was accessed in YYYY-MM-DD format if possible.

3. I am not comfortable with this one yet.

[Jegelewicz]

Shall we do whatever we do to the form to the classification bulkloader (and so indirectly to the hierarchical editor) as well?

Oh thaaaat - yes.

[Jegelewicz]

In order to (hopefully) entice those entering new classifications, we would like the following to DISPLAY the first time a classification is created (and perhaps also any time someone chooses to edit Non_Classification Terms).

With the terms VISIBLE, it would be far more likely that someone would complete them.

I would vote for them all to be REQUIRED, anyone else think so?

[DerekSikes]

I support that they display always and be required to save.

-Derek

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < notifications@github.com> wrote:

In order to (hopefully) entice those entering new classifications, we would like the following to DISPLAY the first time a classification is created (and perhaps also any time someone chooses to edit Non_Classification Terms).

[image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5725767/49971420-aabbbc80-feeb-11e8-8a76-2f2d153e05a5.png

With the terms VISIBLE, it would be far more likely that someone would complete them.

I would vote for them all to be REQUIRED, anyone else think so?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1760#issuecomment-447144038, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIraM9WcAMf8tvcV3zFe_fYfUesemgdQks5u4tT_gaJpZM4X5JLC .

--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects Professor of Entomology University of Alaska Museum 1962 Yukon Drive Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960

dssikes@alaska.edu

phone: 907-474-6278 FAX: 907-474-5469

University of Alaska Museum - search 400,276 digitized arthropod records http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento_all http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological Network" at http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us http://www.akentsoc.org/contact.php

[dustymc]

related: #1816

[Jegelewicz]

@ArctosDB/taxonomy requests that the following DISPLAY the first time a classification is created (and perhaps also any time someone chooses to edit Non_Classification Terms).

With the terms VISIBLE, it would be far more likely that someone would complete them.

[Jegelewicz]

So this is sort of implemented?

Can we eliminate the blank lines and make sure that "source authority" shows up?

[sharpphyl]

Why not list all eight items in the menu? Then delete any left blank.

What is "preferred name"? If it's the preferred synonym aren't we asking for inconsistency since synonyms are on a different screen? Or does this relate to the agent managing the taxon?

And while we're about it, it's time to delete the suggestion to add the "display name" since we've already said that it's auto generated.

[dustymc]

https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1851 http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTTAXON_TERM

[Jegelewicz]

May not matter if #1852 happens

[Jegelewicz]

And while we're about it, it's time to delete the suggestion to add the "display name" since we've already said that it's auto generated.

Screen Shot 2019-03-16 at 7 13 18 AM

waiting on Test

[Jegelewicz]

My limited skills did not allow me to accomplish this when revamping the taxonomy pages. I would like to have this done, because right now we just get 10 blank spaces.

[dustymc]

populate the default new classification form with noclass terms, ignore if type isn't supplied

[dustymc]

https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2926#issuecomment-996824693 makes this irrelevant; closing.