Organism ID vs Entity ID vs Agent

[campmlc]

I just went through the process of creating an entity for the first time, which was excrutiating. I have no idea if I did anything correctly. https://arctos.database.museum/entity.cfm?action=edit&entity_id=4 The process is opaque, and even if documentation were present this is an incredibly complex operation. After I created the entity, I added the entity IDs (as url - this is not clear) to each record as an organism ID. I could then click the entity and see all the records, whew. Then, I experimented with the same thing by creating an agent for the same animal, "Bernice". She was a chimp at the ABQ zoo. I added all her IDs as akas to her agent profile. I added her as an agent to each record (as "subject"). Much easier, much clearer, no need for reciprocally connecting anything. And voila, all the specimen records and identifiers show up in a single, clear dashboard on her agent page. I strongly suggest, yet again, that we incorporate the agent model for use with organisms. It works and delivers precisely what we need.

[campmlc]

To minimize confusion, changed preferred name to "Bernice Pan troglodytes" to distinguish from any other Bernices out there.

[Jegelewicz]

I changed Bernice's agent type to other agent.

[Jegelewicz]

Here is a project for Bernice.

What can it do that an agent can't?

• no birth death date (unless we use start and end for that, which isn't explicit, but sorta works)
• no relationships to parents, siblings, children (these could be manually created as related projects)
• Accessions for an organism would need to include ONLY that organism, probably NOT realistic
• other identifiers need to be added to every single catalog record manually

What can and Agent do that a project can't?

• explicit birth and death dates
• explicit relationships to other agents
• explicit identifiers as akas, no need to add them to every single catalog record
• addresses (zoo and experimental animals move around)

What other ways should we evaluate this idea?

[campmlc]

We discussed yesterday in intern meeting - (I also changed type to other agent - not sure why it didn't save). @mkoo @KyndallH

[Jegelewicz]

I had to remove "first name" as other agents cannot have a first name.

[Jegelewicz]

@dustymc has always said we should just catalog organisms. We had some discussion about organisms during the TDWG MaterialSample Task Group meeting yesterday. In order to create an organism ID GUID, the Field museum creates a new "specimen-less" catalog record. Given this and all of our discussions, here is what I propose, because I think we can do slightly better for our community.

1. We create a community managed collection. (Arctos:Entity)
2. Arctos:Entity will use the Teach collection code
3. Arctos:Entity will be managed by those with manage_code_table and requests for new entities will be handled the same way code table requests are
4. Records in Arctos:Entity will ALWAYS be part-less
5. GUIDS from Arctos:Entity can be used as values in other identifier = Organism ID
6. We create a few new event types: birth and death so that we can record these events for organisms when they are known

The reason I propose this special collection for organisms is that it will help prevent the creation of duplicate identifiers in Arctos for any given organism. It also allows us to share the burden of keeping up with them and will not impose additional fees for collections doing the work to connect things. I have settled on "Entity" because cultural collections may have use for this as well - to bring together various parts of a set and so on.

Over time, I think we will find opportunities to seed catalog records from Arctos:Entity and to add data to Arctos:Entity from other catalog records, but we can work those out as they become apparent and useful. We will likely need some rules about when an Arctos:Entity record should be created, but I think they can be fairly simple.

What about this is nuts? I'm sure something is!

[campmlc]

This is definitely an interesting idea and corresponds with previous suggestions for a synthetic "organism view" that would combine multiple records from the same individual via the UI. This makes more sense than that approach. How would we integrate this with other platforms and GBIF?

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 8:02 AM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

@dustymc https://github.com/dustymc has always said we should just catalog organisms. We had some discussion about organisms during the TDWG MaterialSample Task Group meeting yesterday. In order to create an organism ID GUID, the Field museum creates a new "specimen-less" catalog record. Given this and all of our discussions, here is what I propose, because I think we can do slightly better for our community.

1. We create a community managed collection. (Arctos:Entity)
2. Arctos:Entity will use the Teach collection code
3. Arctos:Entity will be managed by those with manage_code_table and requests for new entities will be handled the same way code table requests are
4. Records in Arctos:Entity will ALWAYS be part-less
5. GUIDS from Arctos:Entity can be used as values in other identifier = Organism ID
6. We create a few new event types: birth and death so that we can record these events for organisms when they are known

The reason I propose this special collection for organisms is that it will help prevent the creation of duplicate identifiers in Arctos for any given organism. It also allows us to share the burden of keeping up with them and will not impose additional fees for collections doing the work to connect things. I have settled on "Entity" because cultural collections may have use for this as well - to bring together various parts of a set and so on.

Over time, I think we will find opportunities to seed catalog records from Arctos:Entity and to add data to Arctos:Entity from other catalog records, but we can work those out as they become apparent and useful. We will likely need some rules about when an Arctos:Entity record should be created, but I think they can be fairly simple.

What about this is nuts? I'm sure something is!

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-972946983, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBBGJN3KB55Q7ZSBEGTUMUIQDANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

[Jegelewicz]

How would we integrate this with other platforms and GBIF?

By sending the url for the Arctos:Entity record as the Organism ID for the catalog record item. This is exactly what Field Museum does. We would NOT transmit anything in the Arctos:Entity collection to GBIF (yet). Eventually, we may want to send that information in its own kind of Darwin Core Archive, but for now, it would remain with us (although everyone could see it through the Organism ID link).

[dustymc]

@dustymc has always said w

No, the data themselves are and have been doing that. (I suppose it's too late to switch my title from "data janitor" to "Speaker for the Data"?)

community managed collection

I have been saying bigger is better - something bigger than Arctos would be better, but if we must do this then this seems as good as it gets.

managed by those with manage_code_table

This seems entirely unnecessary, I'm not sure what the goals of such restrictions would be, but it's also "details" that can be easily adjusted at any time using familiar tools.

ALWAYS be part-less

I don't get that either (but it's also just more details). Why not accumulate parts? "This critter has blood samples in these 48 places that we know of, none of them have useful public data" seems incredibly useful, condition ("we have no idea") and disposition ("not here") handle the details.

GUIDS from Arctos:Entity can be used as values in other identifier = Organism ID

and

"Entity" because cultural collections

1. Yes, a GUID in the whatever-its-called collection is just an identifier capable of carrying the kinds of data that keep being mentioned, the collection needs a name but the identifier itself can be used for WHATEVER. "Organism ID" is one of those.
2. Yep, "a whole bunch of people ran off with chunks of this thing" can't be too rare. (But maybe any of those that anyone cares about have inherent names - I've got a chunk of The Berlin Wall, it wasn't the only wall around and I don't have any fancy numbers scribbled on it but everybody knows what it is anyway.)

few new event types

Attributes - events are interactions with humans, Attributes are - well, Attributes. (I was wondering how we don't have this, turns out we do but we call it "numeric age" and the collecting event after "verbatim preservation date." Might be a good opportunity for some reconciliation.)

prevent the creation of duplicate identifiers in Arctos for any given organism

I think that's an impossible (albeit worthy) goal. The printer stuck, 12 XYZ pages got printed, now there are 273 things that say "XYZ123" on them out there. Some sort of filter seems very useful, but starting out with the idea that you can do something that you won't actually be able to do will be frustrating. Duplicates WILL be created, and this data object is capable of doing something about it: https://handbook.arctosdb.org/documentation/catalog.html#recataloging-specimens

share the burden

Not if doing so requires manage_codetables. This would just be a collection, you can grant access to anyone who can demonstrate that they understand how to use it.

need some rules

I'll again advocate for openness/inclusiveness. If the bar is very high then this just won't get used. Definitely rules and guidelines are needed, but I think they should generally encourage new "entities" when there's some question - "this seems like something that might have a chunk cataloged elsewhere" would be a HUGE benefit for some future researcher who might be willing to dig around in the collection and maybe make everyone's data better.

Anyway, all details, I still don't see a better approach or more appropriate data object for this.

How would we integrate this with other platforms

Such as?

and GBIF

AFAIK they don't accept Organisms but they do Occurrence-->OrganismID - we'd just give them what they can handle.

[Jegelewicz]

I have submitted a prospective collection request so we can discuss there.

[dustymc]

discuss there

I don't know where "there" is - should I?

[Jegelewicz]

I don't know where "there" is - should I?

It will become an issue in the New Collections repo, which is where we make decisions about incoming stuff...

[ewommack]

AWG at 9 Dec 2021 meeting agreed to try it out.

[Jegelewicz]

Please review the project - https://github.com/ArctosDB/new-collections/projects/59

[ccicero]

@Jegelewicz @dustymc @campmlc

I don't need if this is the right place to post this, but I just finished uploading MVZObs:Bird records that go with MVZ:Bird records (= same organisms = same entity) - with reciprocal relationships 'same individual as'

Here is the saved search.

This will be a good test case once the new 'entity' collection is set up.

[campmlc]

Will you be adding additional records for the ones that died, e.g. MVZ:Bird:193195? For that one, you have one record with an encounter event, another record cataloged in your Obs catalog, and a final record for the carcass?

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 6:35 PM Carla Cicero @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

@Jegelewicz https://github.com/Jegelewicz @dustymc https://github.com/dustymc @campmlc https://github.com/campmlc

I don't need if this is the right place to post this, but I just finished uploading MVZObs:Bird records that go with MVZ:Bird records (= same organisms = same entity) - with reciprocal relationships 'same individual as'

Here is the saved search https://arctos.database.museum/saved/DougBell_GoldenEagles.

This will be a good test case once the new 'entity' collection is set up.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-999214470, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBABUFTXAAIR37TGVITUSETO7ANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[Jegelewicz]

@dustymc @campmlc @ccicero

The Arctos Entity Collection is live! Before we start writing up procedures and such, I'd like to create a couple of entities so that we can review and talk about how it should work for the community.

I was going to test with Kianga and then one pair of Carla's bird/observation records.

Is everyone OK with me doing that?

[Jegelewicz]

MVZ Bird test https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Bird:193195 https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZObs:Bird:4777

[campmlc]

Yes

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022, 2:00 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

@dustymc https://github.com/dustymc @campmlc https://github.com/campmlc @ccicero https://github.com/ccicero

The Arctos Entity Collection is live! Before we start writing up procedures and such, I'd like to create a couple of entities so that we can review and talk about how it should work for the community.

I was going to test with Kianga and then one pair of Carla's bird/observation records.

Is everyone OK with me doing that?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-1007737093, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBFCQRUD5HUU7ROAJRDUU5H6TANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[ccicero]

Awesome Teresa, and go for it. Thanks!

Mariel - with regard to your question, we only will be getting the blood samples, no carcasses (even if the bird died). So the data in Arctos are what we have, and I don't expect more for those records.

[Jegelewicz]

OK - Kianga has been created in the Arctos:Entity collection.

A few observations:

1. When I put the link for the entity record (https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:1) in Organism ID, it does not show up on the catalog record.

So this

Looks like this in the catalog record

2. We need to think about how the information in the entity should propagate to the catalog records with parts from it/observations of it.

So that all of this which is in the entity

will be complete in all of the catalog records of things from that entity

3. Some stuff in the entity records needs more thoughtful consideration. For Kianga, birth and death might be good events to include in the entity record while things like "collection" and "observation" would be more useful in the object/observation records.

4. I used "living specimen" as the record type for Kianga, but I wonder if "individual" and "assemblage" might be better types for this collection. Kianga will eventually die, but the record in the entity collection will never hold a "specimen" so I think we need to decide how to handle it.

5. We should also consider how entity attributes populate/are populated by attributes in the object/observation records. vs

And there is probably more, but I think a focused discussion group will be helpful.

If everyone will complete this When2Meet maybe we can meet up for an hour and talk about it?

@campmlc @ccicero @dustymc anyone else?

[dustymc]

When I put the link for the entity record (https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:1) in Organism ID, it does not show up on the catalog record.

I don't think you added it, but I don't have access so IDK. There is some magic around OrganismID (or subsets thereof, or something) that will need redone, that could be the problem.

how the information in the entity should propagate to the catalog records

I'm certainly up for discussion, but I don't think it should (or can). Propagating the other way - pulling stuff to the entity - seems more useful/safer.

will be complete in all of the catalog records of things from that entity

I think that's just wrong and confusing. THIS blood sample says "123" - adding "456" (some other sample from some other time/place/collection/whatever) to that record just adds confusion and results in nobody quite knowing what they're looking at. The entity could/should bear both "123" and "456" but I think the other way - at least via automation - is probably just evil.

"living specimen" and "individual" sound like same thing to me, at least for mammals. "assemblage" seems just wrong - we're not building a critter from the samples (yet?!)....

for this collection

I don't think the collection will be that homogeneous, at least if anyone uses it. It's the proper place to catalog an "assemblage" of dinnerware, so the set can be pieced back together from the 42 pieces (and photos and correspondence and ....) scattered across 20 museums, for example. Also pack of wolves, population of sponges, whatever - anything that seems useful as a THING to someone for some reason.

[Jegelewicz]

@acdoll says - Create an event with no data and give it the nickname 'Entity event' - then pull that for all Arctos Entity records.

[ccicero]

An update on my first entity project (yay!), for the record:

Here is the project on the Golden Eagle tracking. I bulkloaded the entity records and then bulkoaded relationships to MVZ:Bird and MVZObs:Bird.

Following our discussion today, I decided that a general locality/event is better than no locality/event. This way one can see the range of dates and general region where eagles were followed with radio telemetry after banding and sampling for blood. 

I used the existing locality ID of 'San Francisco Bay Region' for all birds that stayed within the region (but maybe were tracked in different counties), and entered a broader range for ones that travelled farther (e.g., 'San Francisco Bay Region to Mexico."

For verbatim locality, I put 'Entity locality - see individual records for specific localities' ; for the dates, I put the range of dates from the first trapping to the date of the last known position.

In remarks I put 'Bird captured, banded, sampled for blood, and followed using radio telemetry. See individual records for details of specific occurrences.'

It is a bit of a pain to get the data together, but that's a function of how we receive the data. The Arctos part of the process is fairly straightforward. I have another batch of >300 blood samples, some multiple samples from the same individual. I think (hope) those data will be easier to work with.

[dustymc]

It's not clear what the entity is doing in this situation - it's just one more relationship, something we've always been able to do. Suggesting adding the EntityID (https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:10) to the "real" records (eg https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Bird:193206), probably as type Organism ID. That won't be very interesting within Arctos - that's not the point of "entities" anyway - but that will provide a unique, resolvable identifier for the "components" in eg GBIF, which is new and interesting.

[Jegelewicz]

What @dustymc said - these should be Organism ID in the catalog records - my bad for not making that clear when we talked about it yesterday, but easy enough to correct with the other identifier bulkloader.

Now that we have some great examples to look at - it is time to schedule a focus group to talk about how this could work better. One of the questions is what should the "reciprocal" of Organism ID be on the entity record? One of the goals is to get at all of the catalog records for things from this entity and right now that doesn't happen.

[ccicero]

@dustymc @Jegelewicz Why is it Organism ID and not Arctos:Entity ?

If I use Organism ID, what do I enter?

https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Bird:193196 ---> https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:3 https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZObs:Bird:4778 ---> https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:3

???

[campmlc]

Entities can be many things, not just organisms. They can also be used by cultural or art collections,for example. If your entity is an organism, you then use the entity ID as the Organism ID, so it will map to DwC. And yes, multiple unique guids will share the same organism = entity ID.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:52 AM Carla Cicero @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

@dustymc https://github.com/dustymc @Jegelewicz https://github.com/Jegelewicz Why is it Organism ID and not Arctos:Entity ?

If I use Organism ID, what do I enter?

https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Bird:193196 ---> https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:3 https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZObs:Bird:4778 ---> https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:3

???

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-1030216291, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBB74BTAIP37YPBJZLDUZQG5LANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[dustymc]

Why is it Organism ID and not Arctos:Entity ?

https://dwc.tdwg.org/list/#dwc_organismID (those links never work, search for organismID)

"Entity" is very general, can be used for lots of things (most of which we presumably haven't thought of yet).

"Organism" is (sorta) specific in DWC-land.

"Organism" is one type of "entity" in Arctos; maybe we'll eventually be mapping dinnerware sets "grouped" by Arctos:Entity to some field in some not-DWC exchange standard.

what do I enter

ID Type=Organism ID value=https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:3 on eg https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MVZ:Bird:193196

[campmlc]

You could include the relationship "same individual as" in your identifier, although this isn't strictly necessary if Dusty creates a link out. We should decide on this. It makes sense to me to have the organism ID display under relationships.

[dustymc]

"same individual as"

I'd probably call that "just wrong" - at least in this case, the individual isn't what's being cataloged. (In the case of two collections cataloging bits of the same dead rat it would be, so maybe there is some room/reason to clarify through relationships.)

Dusty creates a link out.

Hu?

have the organism ID display under relationships

The Organism ID is an attribute of each of the pieces. The "components" are not the 'same individual,' they're a piece of the individual.

Also of note: the Arctos:Entity is but one thing which can be used as OrganismID. Whatever's done as Organism ID with Arctos:Entity should also work for things like band numbers and some future glorious OrganismBank.

[ccicero]

I understand that an entity can be different things, organismal or not. But I'm still a bit confused. Are you all saying that I should select 'Organism ID' as the identifier, but then enter the URL for the Entity ID? Is this mostly so that the Entity ID gets included in the DwC Archive under Organism ID for data aggregators?

It is separate occurrences of the same individual, so why not choose 'same individual as' ? What's the alternative?

[campmlc]

select 'Organism ID' as the identifier, but then enter the URL for the Entity ID? Yes Is this mostly so that the Entity ID gets included in the DwC Archive under Organism ID for data aggregators? - Yes And my view is use same individual as. The alternative is self.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:38 AM Carla Cicero @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

I understand that an entity can be different things, organismal or not. But I'm still a bit confused. Are you all saying that I should select 'Organism ID' as the identifier, but then enter the URL for the Entity ID? Is this mostly so that the Entity ID gets included in the DwC Archive under Organism ID for data aggregators?

It is separate occurrences of the same individual, so why not choose 'same individual as' ? What's the alternative?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-1030250438, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBB3LWA4FRSZZ3AUTILUZQMKNANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[dustymc]

select 'Organism ID' as the identifier, but then enter the URL for the Entity ID

Yes - and please let me know when you've done that to a record so I can make sure flat and DWC are working as they should.

I think the simplest and most consistent thing is to not make relationships to or from the entity at all. Some kinds of OrganismIDs won't be able to support that anyway, and within Arctos the entity doesn't do anything new, other than provide a (very nice!) shared identifier. I just can't see any actual benefit to adding relationships - those get at my comments above - and there is value in "simple" and "consistent."

You should definitely make relationships between the bits when possible, but those do not need to involve the entity.

[campmlc]

I still think we should make the relationships explicit, because this makes sense to humans. Including relationships also provides a link to the "Find all" and "Find all same individual as" tools which are highly useful, if obscure. The alternative "search" tool next to the identifiers which lack relationships is even more obscure.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:45 AM dustymc @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

select 'Organism ID' as the identifier, but then enter the URL for the Entity ID

Yes - and please let me know when you've done that to a record so I can make sure flat and DWC are working as they should.

I think the simplest and most consistent thing is to not make relationships to or from the entity at all. Some kinds of OrganismIDs won't be able to support that anyway, and within Arctos the entity doesn't do anything new, other than provide a (very nice!) shared identifier. I just can't see any actual benefit to adding relationships - those get at my comments above - and there is value in "simple" and "consistent."

You should definitely make relationships between the bits when possible, but those do not need to involve the entity.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-1030254907, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBAFYGG4MVSGM226TEDUZQNDBANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[campmlc]

And we can't make relationships between the bits, if the bits are guids, and if there are more than three of them. This is the reason we need the entity in the first place - too many reciprocals to keep track of.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:50 AM Mariel Campbell @.***> wrote:

I still think we should make the relationships explicit, because this makes sense to humans. Including relationships also provides a link to the "Find all" and "Find all same individual as" tools which are highly useful, if obscure. The alternative "search" tool next to the identifiers which lack relationships is even more obscure.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:45 AM dustymc @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

select 'Organism ID' as the identifier, but then enter the URL for the Entity ID

Yes - and please let me know when you've done that to a record so I can make sure flat and DWC are working as they should.

I think the simplest and most consistent thing is to not make relationships to or from the entity at all. Some kinds of OrganismIDs won't be able to support that anyway, and within Arctos the entity doesn't do anything new, other than provide a (very nice!) shared identifier. I just can't see any actual benefit to adding relationships - those get at my comments above - and there is value in "simple" and "consistent."

You should definitely make relationships between the bits when possible, but those do not need to involve the entity.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-1030254907, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBAFYGG4MVSGM226TEDUZQNDBANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[dustymc]

too many reciprocals to keep track of.

And the proposed solution is to add a multiplier?!

Unrelated to Organisms, https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4101 offers a mechanism by which reciprocals (and other derived assertions) might take care of themselves.

[Jegelewicz]

Note that when I put the entity url in Organism ID with relationship of "self" - it just doesn't show up in the catalog record....

gets me this

The only way to see the Organism ID is to edit other identifiers....

[Jegelewicz]

https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Mamm:326433

[Jegelewicz]

vs. https://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Mamm:326441

[dustymc]

doesn't show up

It will in next release.

[Jegelewicz]

Cool. But then the issue remains - when I am on the entity page, how can I easily get to all of the catalog records that are "part" of that entity?

[ccicero]

So I'm hearing conflicting things:

1) Don't make relationships (Dusty) vs Yes to relationships (Mariel, Teresa). I agree that making relationships makes sense to easily get at all related catalog records. 2) If we do make relationships, use "same individual as" (Mariel, Teresa?) or "self" (Dusty?) - 'same individual as' is more explicit

???

[Jegelewicz]

I agree with Dusty - use Organism ID and self and weirdly, this should also be added to the entity record - see https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:1

[dustymc]

how can I easily get to all of the catalog records that are "part" of that entity?

Give the entity it's own ID, click 'search'?

If we do make relationships,

There are, say, three THINGs involved:

1. Chunk of bird
2. Chunk of bird
3. abstract entity representing the bird as as an organism

I don't think it makes sense that the relationship between (1) and (2) is the same as the relationship between (1) and (3), and as far as I can tell that's what's being offered.

I don't think relationships are wrong, just that they're not really necessary and aren't possible on all types of Organism IDs. I don't think it can hurt anything to add them, I'm just not sure that's complexity worth "requiring" (via documentation - we probably can't actually require anything).

[Jegelewicz]

You beat me to it!

on ANY of the records with that identifier finds them all

[Jegelewicz]

But we need to get rid of the "not found" - what's that doing?

[dustymc]

beat me to it!

About time!

Note that this also works with things like band numbers, or anything else someone might want to use to build an organism (but not from the "entity" which wouldn't exist in that case). Consistency==good.

rid of the "not found"

That's part of what's hiding things, gone in next release.

[campmlc]

Then we need a tool to " find all same organism as" somewhere on the catalog record page and on the entity page.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 12:30 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

I agree with Dusty - use Organism ID and self and weirdly, this should also be added to the entity record - see https://arctos.database.museum/guid/Arctos:Entity:1

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-1030287533, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBGLKH7P7XFDBEVMNJLUZQSODANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[campmlc]

But that is obscure. Need what I just posted.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 12:35 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

You beat me to it!

[image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5725767/152591889-93383272-c935-41c7-af47-0942c8b124b6.png

on ANY of the records with that identifier finds them all

[image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5725767/152591995-54fb15b1-cfaf-410c-b118-2afc671b49dd.png

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/3765#issuecomment-1030290749, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBF2MDP4HMWD2BCCQP3UZQS7JANCNFSM5A42AMTA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>