Schedule of UKSI updates?

[DavidHepper]

I've made an update to UKSI via NHM and the change is showing in Sandbox where a new Preferred TVK is present. What is the schedule for updating iRecord, in sync with NBN Atlas, perhaps? If this won't happen by mid-Feb 2024 I'll have to revert to sending the old TVK.

Specifics: Anaciaeschna isoceles https://uksi-sandbox.nhm.ac.uk/taxon.php?linkKey=NHMSYS0021009091 is becoming Aeshna isoceles https://uksi-sandbox.nhm.ac.uk/taxon.php?linkKey=NHMSYS0021689820 on this new TVK. (Don't ask!)

[Sam-Amy]

I'm wondering if this is causing a similar issue I'm seeing with some byophyte taxa. @DavidHepper I can't see any records of Aeshna isoceles showing now on the explore page - did this get sorted for you?

[DavidHepper]

It's complicated. I spoke with Chris Raper at NHM and he tells me that UKSI has to be pulled into iRecord (and other related systems at BRC) and separately into NBN Atlas. Although these 'pulls' are quite independent they ought really to be co-ordinated to keep consistency. The latest UKSI is in the Sandbox, for testing, but the one to be pulled is apparently an intermediate that can't be interrogated from the web, so it's all rather opaque to us mere mortals. The NBN team is struggling to sort larger issues at present, so updating UKSI to the Atlas isn't high on their priorities. Currently Aeshna isoceles still appears in both systems as Anaciaeschna isoceles. Historically, updates to UKSI in iRecord have caused some issues that have to be sorted manually. For minor issues, my advice is to make doubly sure that the taxonomy in UKSI-Sandbox is squeaky clean rather than requesting custom fixed in iRecord. That way, when the updates eventually reach iRecord everything will work.

[DavidHepper]

Do we have an ETA for update to the latest UKSI please, preferably in tandem with NBN Atlas taking it?

[johnvanbreda]

@DavidHepper FYI iRecord's copy of UKSI was updated yesterday.

[DavidHepper]

Thank you. Will this take a while to settle down? I'm seeing records of Aeshna isoceles coming through, e.g. ID 36464674, but these don't have a Common Name. 'Norfolk Hawker' seems still to be attached to Anaciaeschna. Also, while entering a new record, if I start entering 'Anaciaeshna is...' it shows 'NONE' after the Species name: and I'm still unable to see a Common Name when I enter the full, preferred species name 'Aeshna isoceles'.

[sacrevert]

@johnvanbreda When you are back, can you explain something about the recent UKSI update. We had some changes to the UKSI made in April, including adding some common names for NPMS aggregates where they were lacking. (For example Viola reichenbachiana/riviniana (UKSI Sandbox link) had a common name added as a synonym. However, this does not show up as a common name where it appears on one of the NPMS species lists: https://warehouse1.indicia.org.uk/index.php/taxa_taxon_list/edit/368996

Could you explain what changes we need to make to either the UKSI, or in the warehouse, for such taxa to have a default common name in indicia? I have looked at taxa in the UKSI with common names that appear for data entry in iRecord and NPMS, but cannot spot any obvious difference in the information contained within entries (e.g. comparing Viola reichenbachiana/riviniana to Viola recihenbachiana). Thanks (tagging @andrewvanbreda and @Sam-Amy for info)

[DavidRoy]

@burkmarr might also have some insights on this