Add soil types from WRB

[cpfaff]

We are currently only using the general classes defined in the WRB for soil types. While this is helpful in general iit does not hurt if we also have more detail in the vocabulary. We had this in the beginning however decided to remove it as we found it to detailed. I do not thing this is a problem as we can keep the general classes as well. So these can be used for annotation or if you know better your can just select the exact soil type.

[EichenbergBEF]

While in general I completely agree with you that the possibility to
go into more detail is favourable without the explicit need to do so
you should keep in mind the following:

In every situation you allow for either more or less detailed
annotations, the search algorithm must be able to abstract the
information from the more detailed level to the more general level or
vice-versa in order to retrieve certain datasets in a search.

Merry christmas!!

Zitat von Claas-Thido Pfaff notifications@github.com:

We are currently only using the general classes defined in the WRB
for soil types. While this is helpful in general iit does not hurt
if we also have more detail in the vocabulary. We had this in the
beginning however decided to remove it as we found it to detailed. I
do not thing this is a problem as we can keep the general classes as
well. So these can be used for annotation or if you know better your
can just select the exact soil type.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cpfaff/cas/issues/33

[cpfaff]

I am adding this now fully. I am currently compiling a document that clarifies the relations between the vocabulary and the schema. The document will help to find out what to preselect and show in the application and what to keep as backup for more detail in the background.

[cpfaff]

This is done now in the open office document just checked into the repository here. This will be used to guide the shaping of the thesaurus then.

[cpfaff]

This will be an own issue though