Annotation Library: add filter by project and site functionality

[atruskie]

The annotation library should be able to filter audio events by project and site.

Add UI and ensure QSP filtering works as well.

This blocks https://github.com/QutBioacoustics/baw-server/issues/182#issuecomment-185639577

This is partially blocked by https://github.com/QutBioacoustics/baw-server/issues/253

[JessieLOliver]

I can't think of a case where filtering by record ID would be useful any project managers, but sorting by project is VERY helpful to both find out what species have already been found, particularly if searching for multiple sites can be enabled so those of us with multiple sensors at a particular location can search for the entire region rather the just by sensor, which would also allow for easier tag clean up/updating too>. It would, however, also be VERY useful to have separate fields/options to search by for "Common name tags", "Species scientific names" or both. Otherwise, I am given many things I don't want. For example, when searching for "bat" I am given tree creeper species that have letters spelling "bat" in the scientific name, which means I have to wade through many annotations to get what I am after. If possible, a looks-like filter would also be helpful.

[atruskie]

Clarifications required:

• by record ID do you mean Recording Id?
• by sorting by project do you mean filtering? Or do you actually want sorting by project?

Suggestion:

• add a filter field by exact tag match
  • if you search for flower shaped it would only find things that have the exact tag
  • this would be an auto-complete field (like on the listen page)
  • it would only accept tag names that exist
  • this solves the sounds like, looks like, common name, and species name problem but only adds one extra search field (instead of four)
  • this would solve your searching for bat problem

Thoughts?

[JessieLOliver]

Clarifications: 1) Yes, recording id 2) good catch, "filter"

I do like the "exact tag" idea though I already find it difficult to find many species as they are inconstant with hyphenation and sometimes the names are different than the common names I know all together, so I am not sure how well this would work in practice. For example the actual tag is "flower-shaped" so I assume an exact match wouldn't how the tags if someone typed in "flower shape" or "flower shaped". Do I understand this correctly?

[atruskie]

Any exact match field would be auto-complete powered (as was said in the previous message) meaning that small issues like misspellings or hyphenation shouldn't matter as they wouldn't be allowed as valid input in the first place (e.g. if someone typed for flower shape the auto-complete would suggest flower-shape and they would not be able to actually search for flower shape)

As for the problem with alternate spellings, we currently have a fixed taxonomy for tags which has been purposely deduplicated. Alternate spellings won't be an issue until we reintroduce folksonomic concepts.