dustymc
commented
5 months ago list of use
Data:
Summary:
guid_prefix | count
-------------+-------
MVZ:Mamm | 779
UCM:Mamm | 11
NMMNH:Mamm | 867
ASNHC:Mamm | 127
ASNHC:Bird | 7
DMNS:Bird | 1122
UWYMV:Mamm | 2
NMU:Mamm | 1911
DGR:Mamm | 5
DMNS:Herp | 1
DMNS:Mamm | 2322
MLZ:Mamm | 19
CRCM:Mamm | 1
UAM:Mamm | 11518
MSB:Mamm | 38311
UWBM:Mamm | 17
MSB:Fish | 2
MVZ:Herp | 82
CHAS:Mamm | 1
MSB:Herp | 33
CHAS:Teach | 1
UMZM:Mamm | 7
UCM:Bird | 17
UMNH:Mamm | 671
MSB:Bird | 715
UTEP:Herp | 12
CHAS:Bird | 2
DGR:Bird | 1
UWYMV:Bird | 21
UMNH:Herp | 4
UCM:Herp | 2
KSB:Mamm | 238
UMZM:Bird | 16
ASNHC:Herp | 7
MVZ:Bird | 280
Ping:
@jrdemboski @keg34 @amgunderson @jldunnum @catherpes @AdrienneRaniszewski @campmlc @jtgiermakowski @ccwlobo @adhornsby @ccicero @mkoo @cjconroy @atrox10 @jebrad @ewommack @mvzhuang @acdoll @lin-fred @ebraker @droberts49 @kderieg322079 @wellerjes @rwilhoyt @jessicatir
cjconroy
campmlc
jldunnum
catherpes
Jegelewicz
acdoll
amgunderson
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.
Currently we have part names that are also taxa. It would be preferable to include these in identifications in order to increase discoverability.
Context
Describe why this new value is necessary and existing values are not.
Now that we have the ability to record more than one accepted identification on a catalog record, I propose that we add the identifications to the affected records and replace the part names with whole organism. The identification order should probably be determined by the collections using the part names.
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=ctspecimen_part_name
Proposed Value
Proposed new value. This should be clear and compatible with similar values in the relevant table and across Arctos.
Alternatively, we could add associated species attributes.
For an example of how this would look (both as an identification and as associated species) see https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UTEP:Herp:11727
The first option is more powerful for taxonomy searching. Nobody is going to find the tick as long as the taxonomy is buried in a part name or an attribute.
Proposed Definition
Clear, complete, non-collection-type-specific functional definition of the value. Avoid discipline-specific terminology if possible, include parenthetically if unavoidable.
N/A
Collection type
_Some code tables contain collection-type-specific values.
collection_cdemay be found from https://arctos.database.museum/home.cfm_N/A
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)
N/A
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.
N/A
Attribute units
if numerical values should be accompanied by units, provide a link to the appropriate units table.
N/A
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
N/A
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.
@dustymc please provide a list of use
Available for Public View
Most data are by default publicly available. Describe any necessary access restrictions.
N/A
Helpful Actions
[x] Add the issue to the Code Table Management Project.
[ ] 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.