Closed nielsklazenga closed 6 months ago
TLDR;
I've linked the status value to the state and its species list (where data originated)...
How does this look?
http://avh-test.ala.org.au/occurrences/5529c0cc-c273-4cdb-aead-d032509251f5
It should be linked to sourceStatus only. The status column in the conservation lists is what has always been causing the confusion. Nobody knows where the data in the status column comes from and there seems to be no relationship between the value in the sourceStatus and status columns. For Acacia hystrics subsp. continua (of the example), the translation is not too bad, although 'data deficient' would have been better (and is an IUCN threat status), but for the actually listed taxa, values that were already IUCN threat statuses have been translated into others and we don't know on what grounds.
The 2 values are the verbatim value (provided by the state) and a matched value (so we can allow searches across states to be made). The states all use different (source) status values, so we try to match to a common set of terms (IUCN maybe), so that the user does not need to know the particulars of each state's terms and their meanings.
The lists are maintained by the states but I don't know how the "common" status values are generated and by whom. @M-Nicholls handles this, so I'll try and find out.
It would be better to show both values but clearly indicate where they come from and what they mean, plus correct any problems with the values (as opposed to just removing it from the display).
From looking at the lists and going through some of the older emails about this I think we should remove the ALA mapped "status" field, just keep the sourceStatus field. People can use the national EPBC list for overall querying if they want to do that.
Any objections?
Thanks Miles. Definitely the best solution. No objections from me.
I agree too - less complicated. So to clarify, only the 'state conservation' will be made available - not EPBC? I like how the State/Territory is clearly stated in that field
Ummm, shouldn't both State/Territory and National (EPBC) be displayed (clearly indicated, as per Nick's comment) as they're not always the same? E.g. the NT endemic Atalaya brevialata, which is listed as Data Deficient in the NT and Critically Endangered in EPBC. If only State/Territory was displayed this would just come up as DD in ALA/AVH. Is the expectation that the user would then independently search EPBC to check any listing there? I query whether they would do so for a taxon presented as DD.
I think we agreed in the HISCOM Teleconference 26/06/17 that 'Country Conservation' should be visible again, not just 'State Conservation'.
I'll make it happen. Country conservation wasn't being indexed when I fixed the display of state conservation but I'll check again now.
Should be there somewhere today.
There has been mention of an issue about the 'Conservation status' in the BioCache, but I can't find it, so, for good measure, copied from the HISCOM thread:
Ah, issue is here: biocache-store#142.
From: Hiscom-l [mailto:hiscom-l-bounces(at)chah.org.au] On Behalf Of Gillian Brown Sent: Thursday, 16 June 2016 9:45 AM To: 'hiscom-l@chah.org.au' Subject: [Hiscom-l] AVH data - conservation status help
Hello HISCOMers, A consultant has asked us if they could get conservation status from AVH data. They want to know what taxa occur in a particular area and what the state conservation status of these taxa are, and they want to be able to get it from one source. I have found the facet in occurrences that allows you to filter by it but which status is it? Is it the state it was collected in? And why are there two on some records (e.g. Endangered, Vulnerable)? I remember talking about the two statuses at the MAHC/HISCOM meeting but I do not remember the outcome, sorry.
Also, when you download the data the conservation status field is not there even though on the AVH download fields page it is listed as column 69. In my download I only get 52 columns and they are not in the same order as the AVH help page.
Thanks in advance for you help.
Gill
From: Niels Klazenga [Niels.Klazenga(at)rbg.vic.gov.au] Sent: Monday, 20 June 2016 7:33 PM To: 'hiscom-l@chah.org.au' Subject: Re: [Hiscom-l] AVH data - conservation status help
Hi all., Donna didn't hear back from me, as I was overseas on leave and am just catching up on this thread now. I might have missed one or two emails, so I apologise if I repeat and accidentally take credit for what someone else might already have said.
As Donna already said, the conservation status data as it appears in AVH was discussed at the MAHC/HISCOM meeting in Hobart in October last year. It has come up in various emails before and since, as it has been a problem right from the start. We probably understand it a bit better now than we did then.
I think the issue of the conservation status information is not one, but three different issues, all of which are bigger issues that go beyond conservation status alone. I believe a quick fix for conservation status information only will be largely unhelpful symptom treatment and that we should look into resolving the underlying issues. Here they are (in my view):
I thought this would be a quick email...
Niels
From: Donna Lewis [Donna.Lewis(at)nt.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2016 10:06 AM To: 'hiscom-l@chah.org.au' Subject: Re: [Hiscom-l] AVH data - conservation status help
Hi All, Nick – thanks for creating an issue for this to be dealt with in the next ALA maintenance sprint in July.
Niels – thanks for your response below. I completely agree that conservation status is not AVH data as conservation status relates to a taxon, not a specimen. I think we should continue to include it (conservation status) in AVH, but it must be presented correctly as the data has many implications for a range of uses, especially if a species has a ‘threatened status’.
Currently AVH presents conservation status for a specimen record as follows:
Two main issues outlined below (I’m sure there are more):
I agree with Niels in that we need to fix this issue properly, not a quick fix.
Nick – is this issue bigger than dealing with it in the next maintenance sprint?
Cheers
Donna
I hadn't noticed the 'Country conservation' on the record detail page before (it hasn't always been there, I think). From Donna's examples above, it appears that the correct list, i.e. the list from the state (or territory) the record is from, is used for the state conservation. Only, in both the state and country conservation fields, the 'status' and 'sourceStatus' from the relevant list are concatenated. Nobody seems to know where the values in the 'status' column in the lists come from or how they are derived. So the issue that Gill originally reported can probably be easily fixed by deleting the 'status' columns from the lists (just not using them might be a less radical solution). We can then reference the lists in the AVH Help.