search

fdschneider / bexis_traits

developing a trait data framework for use in the Biodiversity Exploratories
0 stars 0 forks source link

rename 'traitName' into 'measurementType' #12

Closed fdschneider closed 7 years ago

fdschneider commented 7 years ago

I thoroughly reviewed the EOL TraitBank definitions and they use the DWC measurementType just as we defined traitName. Definition says, that it should refer to a controlled vocabulary ('Body size') or even better an URI (e.g. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/VT_0001259), which links to a precise definition provided in a trait list. Thus, it is more intended in the way we defined traitID.

Since the measurementType may be used for other things than for traits, it might be better to use an own name for it. But for compatibility, it actually would be better to be consistent with DWC and TraitBank.

caterinap commented 7 years ago

I guess that here we need to decide if we want to make it fully consistent with DWC/TraitBank or not. If not then I would keep names as self-explanatory as possible. In this case traitNameis actually more intuitive.

nadjasimons commented 7 years ago

I think that we can use measurementType, especially since we also use measurementUnit or measurementValue for the other columns. I think people will have to read the glossary anyway so it should be understandable.

aostrow commented 7 years ago

I think we should stay with self-explanatory names. We could also rename measurementValue into traitValue or traitMeasurementValue and so on. People don't want to read much (just to understand clear things). The consistency to DwC is ensured by the "Refines"-column inside the glossary. (It is also common for DwC-A, the file format used to transfer info to GBIF, that everybody can use column-names as wanted. But in an additional file these columns are referenced to an DwC/GBIF corresponding type.)

fdschneider commented 7 years ago

For a more intuitive use in the template and R script, and also because traitName is more inclusive than measurementType -- for instance in case of literature values -- I would then go for a consistent set of columns concerning traits: traitName, traitID, traitValue etc. We'll refer to the DWC terms in the column Refines. It also may be more clear for separating the core information from the (optional) measurement level information.