Request - Add term "associated with" to id_references table

[DellaCHall]

Help us understand your request (check below):

• [ ] search or data request (help with SQL or provide the specific fields you are trying to retrieve for your collection)
• [ ] add a new Github user to the Arctos Users team
• [ ] a new barcode series
• [x] a new term for data entry or management
• [ ] a change or new report or label
• [ ] update to an Agent (split, merge, or other type of change)
• [ ] bulkload changes (to Agents, Identifiers, etc that are not already available as a bulkloading tool)
• [ ] new feature or otherwise a good idea to make Arctos even better
• [ ] quarantine taxon name and suggested replacement (please supply links)
• [ ] other

Describe what you're trying to do Cultural collections need a broader term to describe relationships between two cataloged items. There is consensus that "associated with" would be the preferred term (see https://github.com/ArctosDB/code-table-work/issues/40).

[dustymc]

Thanks!

This will need a functional definition to proceed; it will be particularly important to isolate this from https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctid_references#physically_associated_with (assuming it's not the same thing). @ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators can help with that, but I at least would need more information about the functional requirements (=understand what you're trying to DO) to be very helpful.

[campmlc]

Here is the physically associated with issue: https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/6090

[mkoo]

Pending move to code table work based on either a use case (example) and a definition. just a simple draft of either or both is fine, just something we can work with!

[DellaCHall]

This was previously discussed at length in https://github.com/ArctosDB/code-table-work/issues/40.

Teresa's suggestion for a definition was, "The relationship between the two records is not available as an option in the code table, it is described in the identifier remark."

Use case/example: We would like to associate records for prints that have been pulled from the same printmaking matrix, but may not be part of the same edition. For example, these three prints are all printed from the same matrix, but one is a proof, one does not have any edition notation, and one is a print from a posthumously printed edition.

https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UAM:Art:UA1963-060-026 https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UAM:Art:UA1991-019-001 https://arctos.database.museum/guid/UAM:Art:UA2018-002-022

Rather than adding "from same matrix as," which was the previous issue submitted, I have submitted this issue asking for the less specific "associated with," to relate the three records and add in the remarks field how they are related. Hopefully this will resolve this request, along with other future highly specific relationship requests.

[dustymc]

 guid_prefix | count 
-------------+-------
 CHAS:AV     |   379
 CHAS:Egg    |     1
 CHAS:Herb   |   251
 CHAS:Teach  |     3
 KSB:Mamm    |     2
 MSB:Para    |     4
 NMMNH:Ento  |     1
 NMMNH:Herb  |     1
 NMMNH:Inv   |     3
 UAM:Art     |     8
 UAM:Ento    |     6
 UMZM:Bird   |     1
 UMZM:Egg    |     4

@msbparasites @campmlc @DerekSikes @adhornsby @lin-fred @DellaCHall @droberts49 @wellerjes

would it be acceptable to drop "physically" from the current relationship https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctid_references#physically_associated_with ?

I think it's very slightly more specific than what's being requested here, and I suspect the missing bit can in fact be sufficiently handled by remarks. I don't think two terms with such a thin separation will make sense, and the usage makes me suspect the inconvenient part of the existing term is, at least sometimes, being ignored anyway.

I'm of course happy to make any adjustments (eg add 'physically' to remarks) as part of any update if this proves acceptable.

[campmlc]

Works for me. But @DerekSikes requested the physically associated with for things like phoretic mites, so he should respond.

[DellaCHall]

That would work for me, if it's okay with everyone else.

[droberts49]

Jessica @wellerjes and I just checked our records; we have remarks in each that specifies the relationship, so yes, removing "physically" from the "physically associated with" would work for us.

[dustymc]

Adding to AWG agenda, this seems simple but IDK how to finalize.