Code Table Request - Add "bulb" part name

WaigePilson commented 3 months ago

Goal

Add "bulb" as a part name

Context

Currently, the part names table contains just a handful of terms appropriate for describing plant parts: branch, bud, cone, flower, fruit, gall, leaf, pollen, rhizolith, rhizome, root, seed, spore, stem, and whole organism.

Similar to a rhizome, a bulb is a modified underground stem, in this case with modified leaves used for food storage. It would be appropriate to add bulb as another modified underground stem.

Table

https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecimen_part_name

Proposed Value

bulb

Proposed Definition

A modified subterranean plant stem usually consisting of a relatively large, usually globe-shaped structure of modified stem and fleshy leaves that functions as food storage organs during dormancy.

Priority

High, needed for importing of some UBWM:PB records

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 @camwebb @Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS

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._

[x] Code Table Administrator[1] - check and initial, comment, or thumbs-up to indicate that the request complies with the how-to documentation and has your approval
[x] Code Table Administrator[2] - check and initial, comment, or thumbs-up to indicate that the request complies with the how-to documentation and has your approval
[ ] DBA - The request is functionally acceptable. The term is not a functional duplicate, and is compatible with existing data and code.
[x] DBA - Appropriate code or handlers are in place as necessary. (ID_References, Media Relationships, Encumbrances, etc. require particular attention)

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.

Can a suitable solution be found here? If not, proceed to (2)
Can a suitable solution be found by Code Table Committee discussion? If not, proceed to (3)
Take the discussion to a monthly Arctos Working Group meeting for final resolution.

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.

[x] Review everything one last time. Ensure the How-To has been followed. Ensure all checks have been made by appropriate personnel.
[x] 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.

Adding an existing term to additional collection types may proceed immediately and without discussion, but doing so may also subject users to future cleanup efforts. If time allows, please review the term and definition as part of this step.
The Committee may grant special access on particular tables to particular users. This should be exercised with great caution only after several smooth test cases, and generally limited to "taxonomy-like" data such as International Commission on Stratigraphy terminology.

camwebb commented 3 months ago

:+1: from me

dustymc commented 3 months ago

I'm not at all clear how this lines up with https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTWY6HRlC3TSrAb38W2HOQHiVO2F1tA1m5jaLstYMS8/edit#heading=h.w0tvdqpqd23q, or if that's still the direction we want to lean (seems a few decisions have gone the other way after that was discussed!). If we're trying to push flipper and hand and paw and .... into limb (are we? I'm lost there too!) then should this be - uhh, leaf? (And a modifier?)

Is there an ontology/authority/some sort of big-picture guidance for this sort of thing?

@ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators help!

WaigePilson commented 3 months ago

I'm not at all clear how this lines up with https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTWY6HRlC3TSrAb38W2HOQHiVO2F1tA1m5jaLstYMS8/edit#heading=h.w0tvdqpqd23q, or if that's still the direction we want to lean (seems a few decisions have gone the other way after that was discussed!). If we're trying to push flipper and hand and paw and .... into limb (are we? I'm lost there too!) then should this be - uhh, leaf? (And a modifier?)

I'm fine with us moving "rhizome" as a part_modifier (of part "root") and then putting "bulb" as another part_modifier. However, so long as "rhizome" is a part name, I think that "bulb" should also be for the sake of consistency.

I've got no strong preference, I just need this added so I can import my collection!

Is there an ontology/authority/some sort of big-picture guidance for this sort of thing?

great question! I don't know of one off the top of my head, perhaps a modern botanist would have a better idea...

dustymc commented 3 months ago

I'm not sure I have much of a preference either, other than wishing I had some [yep | nope ] that [ is | ain't ] a part formula...


 guid_prefix | count 
-------------+-------
 NMMNH:Paleo |     2

@Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS any preferences/direction/whatever here?

mkoo commented 3 months ago

I'm not at all clear how this lines up with https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTWY6HRlC3TSrAb38W2HOQHiVO2F1tA1m5jaLstYMS8/edit#heading=h.w0tvdqpqd23q, or if that's still the direction we want to lean (seems a few decisions have gone the other way after that was discussed!). If we're trying to push flipper and hand and paw and .... into limb (are we? I'm lost there too!) then should this be - uhh, leaf? (And a modifier?)

I'm fine with us moving "rhizome" as a part_modifier (of part "root") and then putting "bulb" as another part_modifier. However, so long as "rhizome" is a part name, I think that "bulb" should also be for the sake of consistency.

I think this if you're ok with this where root has part_modifiers of rhizome and bulb then this would best fit the overall goals and inclinations of the Arctos CT

I've got no strong preference, I just need this added so I can import my collection!

Agreed! you just need to get to work!

If we could get input from affected collections (@Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS )?

Jegelewicz commented 3 months ago

ontology - https://browser.planteome.org/amigo/term/PO:0025356

Jegelewicz commented 3 months ago

Above indicates this isn't a root?

campmlc commented 3 months ago

Bulbs are underground stems modified to store resources. . But there is a big difference between a bulb and an aboveground stem from a host of biological and management perspectives. Perhaps this should be its own term. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulb

Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS commented 3 months ago

The issue with rhizome and bulb is that there is not an good "higher level" part that could be used. I think bulb should be its own term.

campmlc commented 3 months ago

Agree. I checked a box.

mkoo commented 3 months ago

CT committee discussed and we agree that we should add bulb-- it does not create problems overall and will allow cataloging to move forward.

dustymc commented 3 months ago

See https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/discussions/7737, would very much like big-picture guidance.

Jegelewicz commented 3 months ago

added

ArctosDB / arctos