Closed fdschneider closed 7 years ago
this would massively blow up the list of trait definitions. I think this too is solved by providing links to corresponding broader or narrower terms. See #6, #7 and #18. Both traits 'number of resources' and 'resource specialisation' would then link to the broader term 'feeding specialisation', although they are using different units.
I'll close this issue.
For some actual traits, we might offer multiple versions as separate traits. e.g. in the case of specialisation, one could record the abovementioned ordinal levels, or the number of resources from network data. Thus we should offer different trait options:
feeding_specialisation
, andnumber_of_resources
, or just an open fielddiet
.Another example is phenology, were owners might record the range of month (as character string, "3-7" or as two integer from-to-values "3" and "7") or the length of the period (as numerical difference, "5").
For geographic range, we have a similar range of potential definitions.