Open doricon opened 1 year ago
I want to confirm this would be part of OTU.
Also, I assume it would be optional, right?
Correct. Part of OTU and an optional field.
definitely optional.
I waffled on being part of the OTU node vs description node. The latter only because then multiple could be made if subsequent authors made revised or differing descriptions, which may or may not be based on different specimen sets than the original description. I formal description does belong to an OTU - but how we implement can be based on practicality too.
For instance, if it is part of a description node. You name the description node "Brown 1963 description". Then you paste into the "published description" box and then try to work through your schema-based interpretation of that descriptions by adding the character instances. For entering like that, having that description at the top of the form would be helpful.
I should note that a "written description" field has already been added to the description node.
Highly requested at workshop: add a field for pasting in the original description of a taxon, contains different language and nuances that cannot be faithfully captured by schema descriptions.
Likely add to OTU node as an optional field, as it is a property of a published taxon. (similar to diagnosis).
From workshop feedback: "Add a field for pasting in an original description, especially important for legacy data where it may be pre-schema (e.g., pre 1999 for MLA) (SEA, Dori, Christopher). Providing a field for entering the formal description for all formally published OTUs (legacy pre-schema, or current) would be extremely useful for the community. The PBot database would improve accessibility to this kind of information and act as a repository/conservatory for such data! (SEA, Dori, Christopher). I like this too (BFJ). I agree with this too. Maybe it could be under the OTU after the Diagnosis? (DP)"