dustymc
commented
2 weeks ago I think I see two functional needs in the above:
- You want to assert the normal '{event_typed} there' place
- You additionally want to assert - well, I'm lost, I'll wander around below.
(1) I believe is generally collected from some sort of watery place (such as https://arctos.database.museum/place.cfm?action=detail&geog_auth_rec_id=10016562). This all seems straightforward, although perhaps we'd need to find more authority data (eg something which contains the parent of the example I found while trying to match your example!) or rebuild the geography model (our continent_ocean field ain't helping clarify anything...) or whatever.
(2) I think you're saying you want to mention eg https://arctos.database.museum/place.cfm?action=detail&geog_auth_rec_id=1018 even though that's not where anything happened, and the patch of rocks-n-dirt encompassed by that polygon definitely is not capable of issuing a permit, hence my complete bafflement. I suspect you simply need to record that https://arctos.database.museum/agent/21350125 issued a permit, but that's not (quite) what I'm hearing and I don't understand why or how that involves geography.
happiah-madson
genevieve-anderegg
Help us understand your request (check below):
Describe what you're trying to do OGL needs to be able to assert both marine and terrestrial place fields on our records. Why do we need to be able to assert both? 1) Permitting is done by terrestrial things. (The Atlantic Ocean does not issue a permit. Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries issues a permit for collecting in the Atlantic Ocean that is on MA's coast.) 2) We are a marine collection and it is critical that we are able to query and understand our records using marine bodies of water.
Because of the second constraint, all of our higher geography is all ocean-related. And yet, this is what our "continent/ocean" data looks like when I look at catalog record summary:
I honestly have no idea what this is pulling from, but the results certainly don't match the definition: "The continent or ocean within which a locality is found. This is the highest geographic category." because the Gulf of Maine is not an ocean. It also asserts that we have have 963 records in the Pacific Ocean. In our old database, we had over 2,000 locations in the Pacific Ocean. So even our attempt to have things "standard" by putting Ocean in higher geography has not rendered our records useful.
If there are no changes made to geography we have two options:
Here are the consequences: all terrestrial information (continent, country, state, city, island, island-group) must be put into specific locality, along with any other marine information, such as the specific waterbody (such as Gulf of Maine). This requires us to put something into our record bulkload template to tell people to put all of this information into specific locality, which, to my mind is the same things as treating it as remarks. If we export data we then have to spend time pulling the standardized information in specific locality (such as continent, country, state, city, island, island group, ocean, specific waterbody) out of a mess of a field before it is useful.
Here are the consequences: some terrestrial information (country, state) is standardized for records. However, continent, island, island-group, ocean, specific waterbody would need to be put in specific locality. This still requires us to put something into our record bulkload template to tell people to put all of this information into specific locality, and if we export data we then have to spend time pulling the standardized information in specific locality out of a mess of a field before it is useful.
There is a difference between Collection-Asserted information and cool background stuff that improves findability of records and has shape files for people who are looking at our data. I need to ASSERT and be able to confirm that things are properly ASSERTED on my records in order to ensure that we can find things in ways we expect to.
It is for this reason that @genevieve-anderegg @sharpphyl Rosie and I feel so strongly about waterbody! Let me assert the things that I need to assert! I'm happy to meet to talk about this, but Arctos's marine collections are in agreement about needing this field or other ways to assert important marine things about our collections. It's not productive for us to have any more geography meetings without @mkoo and @dustymc so if you need a meeting, please send a poll for setting up a meeting.