Closed SeritavdW closed 2 years ago
Maybe it would be good to frame why this example was added in addition to the first DNA example. Is it because of the use of MoF? Also, this is using OTU identifiers for taxonomy and does not include scientificNameID
, just wondering if this is going to cause confusion for users.
Hi Pieter, yeah, so this is a dataset Abby suggested and I created it to show how the DNA derived data can be combined with eMoF as well. It also has a few fields that example 12.1 doesn't have. You are correct, there is no scientificNameID because only some organisms were ID'd to species level and most have a code as species name and not an accepted name. So I thought that might also be useful for users that have unidentified species or no match. We can surely discuss about this, that is why I created the example and committed with review (would have been difficult to discuss without the example). Do you think I should just explain example to avoid confusion or should I remove this one?
Yes please explain what's specific about this example, and maybe mention that although this dataset does not have it we recommend using scientificNameID
.
16S data from: Diversity of Pico- to Mesoplankton along the 2000 km Salinity Gradient of the Baltic Sea (https://www.gbif.org/dataset/9e29a2fe-d780-48a8-a93f-9ce041f9202f)