Closed turbomam closed 1 year ago
Structured comment name | class | Requirement | Item | Definition | Expected value | Value syntax | Example | Section | Preferred unit | Occurrence | MIXS ID |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
soil_horizon | agriculture | C | soil horizon | soil horizon is defined as the layer parallel to the soil surface whose physical, chemical and biological characteristics differ from the layers above and beneath. Horizon can be described both in absolute terms (particle size distribution for texture, for instance) and in terms relative to the surrounding material, i.e. ‘coarser’ or ‘sandier’ than the horizons above and below. | enumeration | enumeration | [O horizon|A horizon|E horizon|B horizon|C horizon|R layer|Permafrost] | 1 | MIXS:0001291 | ||
horizon | agriculture | C | horizon | Specific layer in the land area which measures parallel to the soil surface and possesses physical characteristics which differ from the layers above and beneath | enumeration | [O horizon|A horizon|E horizon|B horizon|C horizon|R layer|Permafrost] | 1 | MIXS:0001082 | |||
soil_horizon | soil | X | soil horizon | Specific layer in the land area which measures parallel to the soil surface and possesses physical characteristics which differ from the layers above and beneath | enumeration | [O horizon|A horizon|E horizon|B horizon|C horizon|R layer|Permafrost] | A horizon | 1 | MIXS:0001082 |
The ticket #529 in MIxS repo states that MIXS:0001291 is wrong and should be corrected to be MIXS:0001082. And that the Structured Comment name of MIXS:0001082 should be "soil_horizon" #232 So they are confirmed changes that you can make in this version, if its possible to reference the tickets 232 & 529 in some way then that would be great, but if not its not a big deal.
The ticket #529 in MIxS repo states that MIXS:0001291 is wrong
I really appreciate by your quick and evidenced responses to these issue!
What does
is wrong and should be corrected
mean?
In the MIxS excel file, agriculture uses both the MIXS:0001291 and the MIXS:0001082 term. So I think the correction you're mentioning would technically create a duplicate agriculture MIXS:0001082 pairing.
Would it be OK to just totally delete MIXS:0001291?
yes, remove the duplicate so Ag package only has 1 instance of MIXS:0001082
INFO:mixs_envo_struct_knowl_extraction.mixs_linkml_from_xlsx:Columns only found in the MIxS sheet: ['Section'] INFO:mixs_envo_struct_knowl_extraction.mixs_linkml_from_xlsx:Columns only found in the environmental_packages sheet: [] INFO:mixs_envo_struct_knowl_extraction.mixs_linkml_from_xlsx:duplication_comment: Classes agriculture has/have duplicate values in Requirement for soil_horizon: C INFO:mixs_envo_struct_knowl_extraction.mixs_linkml_from_xlsx:dupe_frame: class Requirement Structured comment name 1576 agriculture C soil_horizon 1699 agriculture C soil_horizon INFO:mixs_envo_struct_knowl_extraction.mixs_linkml_from_xlsx:duplication_comment: Classes agriculture has/have duplicate values in MIXS ID for soil_horizon: MIXS:0001291, MIXS:0001082 INFO:mixs_envo_struct_knowl_extraction.mixs_linkml_from_xlsx:dupe_frame: class MIXS ID Structured comment name 1576 agriculture MIXS:0001291 soil_horizon 1699 agriculture MIXS:0001082 soil_horizon