search

gbif / portal-feedback

User feedback for the GBIF API, website and published data. You can ask questions here. 🗨❓
30 stars 16 forks source link

Better separation between taxonomic treatment and name mention #4915

Open timrobertson100 opened 1 year ago

timrobertson100 commented 1 year ago

This is a placeholder issue to be expanded upon

On the hosted portal call @archilegt raised the wish for a clearer separation of taxonomic treatments and species name mentions to make it easier to find content.

Archilegt commented 1 year ago

I have no idea how to implement this, other than by classifying "empty" "taxonomic treatments" at the aggregator level as "literature mentions".

Example of source markup: Decker P, Reip H, Voigtländer K (2014) Millipedes and centipedes in German greenhouses (Myriapoda: Diplopoda, Chilopoda). Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1066. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.2.e1066

In that article by Decker et al. (2014), everything was structured as the taxonomic treatments of a checklist, including the scientific names of the higher rank taxa, which have no treatment whatsoever.

For the following classification:

Checklist of centipedes and millipedes in German greenhouses Class Chilopoda Latreille, 1817 Order Lithobiomorpha Pocock, 1895 Family Henicopidae Pocock, 1901 Lamyctes coeculus (Brölemann, 1889)

We have a series of scientific name mentions tagged as treatments (and following each other without nestedness) like this example (for just one name):

ADB89495-B3FE-5D8F-9D6A-9F2D57C64DB0 Chilopoda Latreille, 1817 The following are not treatments but a classification (classificationPath): Class Chilopoda Latreille, 1817 Order Lithobiomorpha Pocock, 1895 Family Henicopidae Pocock, 1901 Which can be modeled as: ADB89495-B3FE-5D8F-9D6A-9F2D57C64DB0 Chilopoda Latreille, 1817 7E74124D-65EA-5894-9082-1D2CD500BE2A Lithobiomorpha Pocock, 1895 A735853F-FA51-5EE3-B03A-A9D3CE487671 Henicopidae Pocock, 1901 ...using taxon-name-part-type values to indicate and visually display the nestedness, or a more complex implementation of parent object-id, child object-id, and child scientific tp:taxon-name. I don't think that the publisher is in the position of fixing this any time soon, as I also don't think that the legacy XML will be reprocessed in case of a new implementation coming up. So this issue will most likely have to be fixed at the aggregator level in the way indicated above (empty taxonomic treatment = literature mention).