DataBC Views to Build

[LeannePyle]

Important Fossil Area

• [x] Area name
• [x] Description
• [x] Area Boundary

Provincially Protected Fossil Site

• [x] Site name
• [x] Description
• [x] Protection Status
• [x] Area Boundary
• [x] Location Description
• [x] Time Scale (as a label from hierarchy)
• [x] Minimum Time
• [x] Maximum Time
• [x] Geological Group
• [x] Formation
• [x] Member

Fossil Site

• [x] Site Name
• [x] Sub-sites - BF - Implemented as a semi-colon separated list of child names
• [x] Location Description
• [x] Area Boundary
• [x] Significance Ranking Code

Collection Event

• [x] Collection Start Year
• [x] Collectors
• [x] Collection Location
• [x] Location Descriptor
• [ ] Collection Event Significance
• [x] Fossil Common Name
• [x] Scientific Name
• [ ] Abundance
• [x] Fossil Size Category
• [x] Time Scale (as a label from hierarchy)
• [x] Minimum Time
• [x] Maximum Time
• [x] Geological Group
• [x] Formation
• [x] Member
• [x] Publication Year
• [x] Publication Type
• [x] Authors

[bferguso]

Notes/questions:

• [ ] Multiple geometries in Provincially Protected Fossil Site (PPFS) Need to determine if DataBC can handle multi-geometries or not. Currently Provincially Protected Sites can have multiple gometries associated with a (and does for Eager Hill). We need to:

  1. Determine if it is valid to have multiple boundaries for a single PPFS or if the sites should only have a single geometry and multiple geometries be modelled as parent/child relationship as it is with Fossil Sites (the relationship already exists
  2. Determine what should be done about multiple geometries in other resource types (Fossil Site, Important Fossil Area)?
  3. If it is desired to have multiple geometries in a single PPFS, then need to see if DataBC can handle multi-geometries. Note - that Arches does not support Multi-geometries (eg Multi-polygons). It can have multiple geometries associated with a resource, but that is done as either an array of geometries in a single tile, or allowing multiple instances of a geometry tile.

• [ ] Currently there are multiple geologic group, formation and members allowed for a PPFS. I think(?) this makes sense, however there is only one checkbox for each of those to be uncertain. Just wondering if the uncertainty flags should be removed. If we leave it the way it is you'll probably want to create some instructions about how the uncertainty flag is used if there is more than one associated value for it.

Collection Events

• [ ] Do you want to include the publication count like we did in the CSV Export view to know how many publications are assoicated with the collection Event?

[LeannePyle]

1. It will be logical to allow PPFS to have multiple geometries modelled as parent/child such as with Fossil Sites - did we find out if DataBC can handle this? Otherwise do we need to consider "merging" shapes into one where there are multiples currently?

Yes, there could be multiples of group, formation, member within a PPFS Each level of the hierarchy should allow a checkbox to indicate uncertainty of an assignment. For example in Loc. 33737 the details are showing the Bullhead Group is certain, but Beattie Peaks shows "Geological Formation Uncertain" - how would the uncertainty match up for a big list of multiples?

Yes to including a Publication count