Description allows specimens to be described by the same schema more than once.

[clairecleveland]

Not sure this absolutely needs to be fixed before Hack-A-Thon since it might be complicated. We could instruct around it if needed, I think.

I was able to create a description for Hack-A-Thon Specimen 230808.CC.1.

Then I was able to create simultaneous descriptions for specimens: Hack-A-Thon Specimen 230808.CC.2 and Hack-A-Thon Specimen 230808.CC.1.

[doricon]

I don't see what the problem is... we do want specimens to be able to have multiple descriptions. Say for example, one author describes a specimen in 1903, and later it is redescribed in 2023 by another worker and with newer interpretation of the features. Both cases can be described by the MLA, but the descriptions may differ. The two descriptions with the MLA record the history of the specimen's descriptions (and publications).

Mostly, I think this will be important to consider in how we display information for specimens and otus that have multiple description nodes.

[clairecleveland]

Oy, don't like the idea that descriptions using the same schema would result in different outcomes through different users. To me that says they are badly defined schemas.

[clairecleveland]

Let's think about this some more in the way we handle entry of old schemas.

[doricon]

lol I hear ya. An unfortunate reality is that even with the best designed schema possible, there will be differences based on who is interpreting the fossil. I've updated/redescribed my own specimens 3-5 years later and the description has been different because I have honed my skills at interpreting venation, or realized I was misunderstanding a feature (total user error, the definitions in the schema were fine). Rather than delete my original description in my private workbench, I would want to enter my updated description, then compare and consider them to check for things I've missed or need to look at more. And then delete the out-of-date one before going public. In which case, being able to have two MLA descriptions for a specimen is really useful for my workflow.

[ecurrano]

There is also huge utility for multiple MLA schemas if you have multiple people working on the same flora. I reviewed a recent Sarah Allen and colleagues paper where they had maybe 5 different people working on the same poorly preserved but really important flora from the Neotropics, and so people individually scored specimens and then they compared to arrive at the final description.

[doricon]

@ecurrano Oh wow! That's a really cool way to do it, especially if working with students too. Nice.

Given these different use cases of multiple descriptions (for a specimen, and by extension for an OTU), I think it will be really fun and useful to work on different ways to display and analyze those descriptions on the Search side. Having data in the system will help guide that a lot!

[aazaff]

I think this discussion is good, and I think I agree with Doria and Ellen.

My only thought about immediate technical implications is currently when we select an OTU and grab the description from the holotype, what would we do if the holotype has more than one description?

[aazaff]

Regardless, going back to Claire's original post. Absolutely nothing, no matter how dire will be fixed anymore before the hackathon. We are now freezed for further bug fixes or enhancement until after the meeting.

[ecurrano]

From a botany standpoint, we probably want to educate on this, and also think over the implications of Andrew's comment: currently when we select an OTU and grab the description from the holotype, what would we do if the holotype has more than one description.