Currently we are having to rely on a join table to accommodate NHMA's request.
Pip suggested that we might be able to intercept this issue earlier by having the NHMA identifier based taxonomy imported into SPecify. We could marshall a field in the Specify taxonomy table to hold the NHMA Entomology taxon keys.
There is a discussion initiated by Pip with NHMA about the alternative taxonomy identifier issue that also touches upon adding superfamily names to the Specify taxonomy. (E-mail from 17-08-2023 "Questions regarding lepidopteran taxon numbers for DaSSCo digi app").
Detailed description of the issue.
If we could consume the taxonomic identifier through the regular Digi App 'taxonomyname' table that would save a join table and simplify the App code.
This table is derived from Specify of course.
While on the topic; I think we should have a 'carve out' class for all the cases where collections have a need for some alternative way of inputting data.
Estimate level of effort required.
?
What is the expected acceptable result.
The input field for the taxon ID would look up in the regular taxonname table, rather than a join table.
Simpler and more intuitive app code.
What could be the challenges ?
How long does it take to insert the taxonomic IDs into Specify?
Are the NHMA staff on board with this method of handling their taxonomy?
Avoiding feature creep.
What test are required ?
Matching the current NHMAjoin table against the Specify taxonomy to see if there are missed shots.
What is the issue ?
Currently we are having to rely on a join table to accommodate NHMA's request.
Pip suggested that we might be able to intercept this issue earlier by having the NHMA identifier based taxonomy imported into SPecify. We could marshall a field in the Specify taxonomy table to hold the NHMA Entomology taxon keys.
There is a discussion initiated by Pip with NHMA about the alternative taxonomy identifier issue that also touches upon adding superfamily names to the Specify taxonomy. (E-mail from 17-08-2023 "Questions regarding lepidopteran taxon numbers for DaSSCo digi app").
Detailed description of the issue.
If we could consume the taxonomic identifier through the regular Digi App 'taxonomyname' table that would save a join table and simplify the App code. This table is derived from Specify of course.
While on the topic; I think we should have a 'carve out' class for all the cases where collections have a need for some alternative way of inputting data.
Estimate level of effort required.
?
What is the expected acceptable result.
The input field for the taxon ID would look up in the regular taxonname table, rather than a join table. Simpler and more intuitive app code.
What could be the challenges ?
How long does it take to insert the taxonomic IDs into Specify? Are the NHMA staff on board with this method of handling their taxonomy? Avoiding feature creep.
What test are required ?
Matching the current NHMAjoin table against the Specify taxonomy to see if there are missed shots.