Closed dimus closed 7 years ago
cross_maps table should have the following fields:
data_source_id | name_string_id | taxon_id | cm_data_source_id | cm_local_id
(data_source_id, name_string_id, taxon_id)
form a composite primary key and are identical to the key from name_string_indices. The order in the key is important. Number of composite keys for open_tree_taxonomy should be the same in composite_maps and in name_string_indices.
we can try to make a "search" key as a composite key as well -- (cm_local_id, cm_data_source_id, data_source_id)
Hm, can it be -- two local ids for the same data_source_id, name_string_id, taxon_id
:
179 00026087-718e-5616-97f2-9e3780ff3f7c 578296 11 29
179 00026087-718e-5616-97f2-9e3780ff3f7c 578296 11 302
Hmm, looks like unresolved homonyms to me -- they did not know which of the homonyms to pick. Interesting to see what do we have in their raw data
We need our system to support more than one source for crossmapping. When people do crossmap -- they enter
output is IDs from target data source
As a first step we do not support jumping from one resolution source to another, it is a future user story.