Important files regarding the Danish instance of the Specify database system for collections digitisation and management, plus placeholder for issue tracking. Guidelines, manuals and other kinds of documentations will be gathered on the wiki.
As the heat is on to start getting the invertebrate and paleobotany collections into Specify, I am now taking the step of ensuring that the Inv Paleo Specify database is ready for that big step.
Bent has very kindly examined how this database currently is set up, and, based on his extensive experience with Specify (and particularly the Vertebrate Paleo and Danekræ databases), has come up with some suggestions to get the Invert Paleo database ready for use.
He has also kindly offered to provide me with some training sessions in the beginning of June, and I also would expect to have additional training needs from one or the other of you (Zsuzsanna and/or Fedor).
I will not lie to you: I am terrified of Specify. I have no real training in databases, and I have found nothing logical in the way that Specify operates; the query functions in particular are mind bending. As I understand it, the database does operate in a logical way, but that there is a relatively steep learning curve to overcome.
Here are the points that Bent has provided, and I send them on nearly verbatim (as he knows the terms/language that you will understand):
1) The Collection Object-template needs to be completely updated to be similar to the one used in the Vertebrate Paleontology/Danekræ-databases.
2) Lithostratigraphy Tree: should be shared with VP Collection and Danekræ (to save having to re-enter a lot of data).
3) Geography Tree: Replace the current one with the one used by the VP Collection database (current is an un-updated, weird mess)
4) Taxon Tree: I suggest copying (or perhaps sharing?) the one, that the Danekræ database uses.
5) Collection agents: I suggest that Invertebrate Paleontology share Collection Agents with VP and Danekræ (to save having to re-enter a lot of data).
6) Localities: I highly recommend that Invertebrate Paleontology either share Locality data with the VP collection, or that the existing locality data from VP collection (possibly merged with that of the Danekræ collection) is imported to the Invertebrate Paleontology-database. Again in order to save having to re-enter a lot of data, as many localities in Denmark and Greenland are the same.
I hope that all of this makes sense, but please do not hesitate to contact me if there are questions.
From Arden Roy Bashforth:
As the heat is on to start getting the invertebrate and paleobotany collections into Specify, I am now taking the step of ensuring that the Inv Paleo Specify database is ready for that big step.
Bent has very kindly examined how this database currently is set up, and, based on his extensive experience with Specify (and particularly the Vertebrate Paleo and Danekræ databases), has come up with some suggestions to get the Invert Paleo database ready for use.
He has also kindly offered to provide me with some training sessions in the beginning of June, and I also would expect to have additional training needs from one or the other of you (Zsuzsanna and/or Fedor).
I will not lie to you: I am terrified of Specify. I have no real training in databases, and I have found nothing logical in the way that Specify operates; the query functions in particular are mind bending. As I understand it, the database does operate in a logical way, but that there is a relatively steep learning curve to overcome.
Here are the points that Bent has provided, and I send them on nearly verbatim (as he knows the terms/language that you will understand):
1) The Collection Object-template needs to be completely updated to be similar to the one used in the Vertebrate Paleontology/Danekræ-databases.
2) Lithostratigraphy Tree: should be shared with VP Collection and Danekræ (to save having to re-enter a lot of data).
3) Geography Tree: Replace the current one with the one used by the VP Collection database (current is an un-updated, weird mess)
4) Taxon Tree: I suggest copying (or perhaps sharing?) the one, that the Danekræ database uses.
5) Collection agents: I suggest that Invertebrate Paleontology share Collection Agents with VP and Danekræ (to save having to re-enter a lot of data).
6) Localities: I highly recommend that Invertebrate Paleontology either share Locality data with the VP collection, or that the existing locality data from VP collection (possibly merged with that of the Danekræ collection) is imported to the Invertebrate Paleontology-database. Again in order to save having to re-enter a lot of data, as many localities in Denmark and Greenland are the same.
I hope that all of this makes sense, but please do not hesitate to contact me if there are questions.