DWCA Importer - Associated Taxa import

[tmcelrath]

Feature or enhancement

When I am importing a DWCA Then I want to be able to import associated taxa direct to the relationships table This could be through the "associatedTaxa" DWC field (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/associatedTaxa) Or through the ResourceRelationship extension (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/ResourceRelationship)

This raises the issue of matching to/creating a second level of taxonomy (for the associated taxa). I think you can include a second table in a DWCA with the taxonomy of the associated taxa?

Location

DWCA Importer

Screenshot, napkin sketch of interface, or conceptual description

No response

Your role

Collection manager

[mjy]

Potential dupe of https://github.com/SpeciesFileGroup/taxonworks/issues/2554 I think.

[tmcelrath]

Yeah but mine is better worded :)

[LocoDelAssembly]

Would have to see sample data to better know if it would work, but associatedTaxa would probably be the less troublesome to implement. Implementing the extension would require changes not only in the importer but also in the UI to start showing more than just the core table.

[tmcelrath]

Example data: Clem-PhD-Specimen-data-for-INHS_FINAL-csv.xlsx

[tmcelrath]

Ignore the "N/As" in that column - also these don't have the hypothetical relationships either, e.g. "associated with":"Quercus alba" instead of just "Quercus alba" - happy to discuss what would be required - I think the "associated with" version would be much better

[proceps]

Probably creating an OTU (without TN) would be enough to start. Probably the relationships should be defined in TW before the migration. I have feeling that thing like "N/A" or "associated with" should be cleaned out before the migration.

[LocoDelAssembly]

"associated with":"Quercus alba" More like "Host plant":"Quercus alba", pattern would be <BiologicalRelationship.name>:<OTU>.

Given this is associatedTaxa and not resource relationship, it wouldn't be possible to associate to another collection object and any objects other than OTU/TaxonName (if TaxonName is valid association at all).

[tmcelrath]

Biological Relationships should ABSOLUTELY be created prior to import.

[tmcelrath]

@proceps sorry my comment wasn't clear - this was a quick and dirty dataset just for example. Ignore the N/As for sure.

"associated with" - is actually DWC recommended format, see here: https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:associatedTaxa

[LocoDelAssembly]

Official examples: "host":"Quercus alba", "host":"gbif.org/species/2879737","parasitoid of":"Cyclocephala signaticollis" | "predator of":"Apis mellifera"

One thing to consider is how often you would found ambiguity. Since we have scientific names without upper classification it would be more likely to find more than one OTU in the project for the same scientific name.