dustymc
commented
10 months ago This feels overloaded as a way to discuss specific terms, but it's a handy way to daylight and document a fundamental aspect of this. The two possibilities which have been suggested are
- Limit this to few more-general terms ("juvenile") and use age to assert details ('1st instar').
- Allow probably-eventually thousands of specific terms ("1st instar") here, help find them them by adding search terms ("juvenile").
I can see usability benefits to either approach. The biggest (assuming we can do a good job with search terms) is probably for data entry - they may eventually be required to pick from at least 60 instars, for example, which will very likely lead to entry errors. (But maybe fewer than attempting a free-text assertion would create.)
Allowing collections to select specific terms will somewhat mitigate this - an insect collection that doesn't have any 6+ instar data can exclude those ~55 terms while still including the ~5 they actually use, a different insect collection can pick a different set of assertable terms.
This also suggests a pattern for the term - surely the "most everything" model will eventually lead to lots of "1st ....." terms, so "instar 1" rather than '1st instar' might be more accessible. (Or confusing: this is a consideration, not a suggestion - and it's part of why I think approving specific terms here, or en masse in general, would be a mistake).
I believe @ebraker likes the many-terms approach, and my thoughts are certainly ambivalent enough to hop on that bandwagon.
@Jegelewicz @ccicero @ebraker @Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS thoughts/elaborations/whatever?
I believe GBIF has more or less gone the other way; their examples include relatively few "data" terms and lots of 'metadata' terms within them. That is,
larvae [lang=en, source=]
tadpole [lang=en, source=]
polliwog [lang=en, source=]
pollywog [lang=en, source=]
polliwig [lang=en, source=]
polewig [lang=en, source=]
polwig [lang=en, source=]
planula [lang=en, source=]
nauplius [lang=en, source=]
zoea [lang=en, source=]
nymph [lang=en, source=]
caterpillar [lang=en, source=]
grub [lang=en, source=]
maggot [lang=en, source=]
wriggler [lang=en, source=]
trochophore [lang=en, source=]
veliger [lang=en, source=]
glochidium [lang=en, source=]
ammocoete [lang=en, source=]
leptocephalus [lang=en, source=]
bipinnaria [lang=en, source=]
caterpillar [lang=en, source=]
grub [lang=en, source=]
maggot [lang=en, source=] are all "search terms" for "larva." (And so if we're going in the opposite direction, maybe their definitions aren't great for us to include?)
Jegelewicz
auzwan
ewommack
Initial Request
Goal
Describe what you're trying to accomplish. This is the only necessary step to start this process. The Committee is available to assist with all other steps. Please clearly indicate any uncertainty or desired guidance if you proceed beyond this step.
Place terms that are currently in age class in the new life stage code table.
Context
Describe why this new value is necessary and existing values are not.
See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Yv3Lx6DtSdmh0P1cSIG6zW-DnYI6VDJpOkFcgQL6F8o/edit#gid=211205961
Table
Code Tables are http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm. Link to the specific table or value. This may involve multiple tables and will control datatype for Attributes. OtherID requests require BaseURL (and example) or explanation. Please ask for assistance if unsure.
https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctlife_stage
Proposed Value
Proposed new value. This should be clear and compatible with similar values in the relevant table and across Arctos.
age class term -- adult embryo larva pupa juvenile subadult 1st instar 2nd instar 3rd instar 4th instar 5th instar
Proposed Definition
Clear, complete, non-collection-type-specific functional definition of the value. Avoid discipline-specific terminology if possible, include parenthetically if unavoidable.
Collection type
_Some code tables contain collection-type-specific values.
collection_cdemay be found from https://arctos.database.museum/home.cfm_Attribute Extras
Attribute data type
If the request is for an attribute, what values will be allowed? free-text, categorical, or number+units depending upon the attribute (TBA)
Attribute controlled values
If the values are categorical (to be controlled by a code table), add a link to the appropriate code table. If a new table or set of values is needed, please elaborate.
Attribute units
if numerical values should be accompanied by units, provide a link to the appropriate units table.
Part preservation attribute affect on "tissueness"
if a new part preservation is requested, please add the affect it would have on "tissueness": No Influence, Allows, or Denies
Priority
Please describe the urgency and/or choose a priority-label to the right. You should expect a response within two working days, and may utilize Arctos Contacts if you feel response is lacking.
Example Data
Requests with clarifying sample data are generally much easier to understand and prioritize. Please attach or link to any representative data, in any form or format, which might help clarify the request.
Available for Public View
Most data are by default publicly available. Describe any necessary access restrictions.
Helpful Actions
[x] Add the issue to the Code Table Management Project.
[x] Please reach out to anyone who might be affected by this change. Leave a comment or add this to the Committee agenda if you believe more focused conversation is necessary.
@ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators
Approval
All of the following must be checked before this may proceed.
_The How-To Document should be followed. Pay particular attention to terminology (with emphasis on consistency) and documentation (with emphasis on functionality). No person should act in multiple roles; the submitter cannot also serve as a Code Table Administrator, for example._
Rejection
If you believe this request should not proceed, explain why here. Suggest any changes that would make the change acceptable, alternate (usually existing) paths to the same goals, etc.
Implementation
Once all of the Approval Checklist is appropriately checked and there are no Rejection comments, or in special circumstances by decree of the Arctos Working Group, the change may be made.
[ ] Review everything one last time. Ensure the How-To has been followed. Ensure all checks have been made by appropriate personnel.
[ ] Add or revise the code table term/definition as described above. Ensure the URL of this Issue is included in the definition. URLs should be included as text, separated by spaced pipes. Do not include HTML in definitions.
Close this Issue.
DO NOT modify Arctos Authorities in any way before all points in this Issue have been fully addressed; data loss may result.
Special Exemptions
In very specific cases and by prior approval of The Committee, the approval process may be skipped, and implementation requirements may be slightly altered. Please note here if you are proceeding under one of these use cases.