Sesamoids in Hand/Foot Bone Groups

[btrnew]

We have instances where complete or nearly complete hands/feet come to us with associated sesamoid bone(s). Currently, there is no sesamoid (1,2,3,etc.) option in the Hand or Foot bone groups.

[SachinPawaskarUNO]

@fedamann, If we have a valid use case as suggested by @btrnew I'm Ok with adding additional bones to these bone groups. I would however encourage the Anthropologists groups in Omaha & Hawaii have a group discussion on this as well as see if the rest of the groups look Ok. We can then follow up with a quick summary conversation during the SCRUM and move forward based upon the decision the group makes. Adding @TarawaProject, @CTegtmeyer, @clegarde @skindsc1 and @emilystreetman to this conversation. I would also like to revisit the bone groups that we removed which had left and right side bones as I have though about a design and architecture change in CoRA to address this capability in the future.

[emilystreetman]

Sesamoids exist as a bone, but it is not possible to add a multiple-count bone into the automatically generated groups. In your ticket, you note there are no "sesamoid 1,2,3" but these numbered sesamoids do not exist as skeletal element options in the system.

Current best practice is to add a hand or foot group, then add sesamoid with count as a separate action, per the scrum 10JAN19.

I am making a new ticket momentarily to request "count" be added to sesamoid, which will at least make this process a little smoother in the future.

[emilystreetman]

Ok to close, @btrnew ?

[btrnew]

Yup! I'll try and close it later. Having issues getting into GitHub right now.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:53 AM Emily Streetman notifications@github.com wrote:

Ok to close, @btrnew https://github.com/btrnew ?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/spawaskar-cora/cora-docs/issues/297#issuecomment-457371902, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApcBbPj_mXakAL0q4EcmGUrxfAkRccrmks5vGitggaJpZM4Yubjt .

-- Briana New Anthropologist for DPAA Hawaii

SNA International

The Global Leader in Forensics, Biometrics and Identity Intelligence

An SBA 8(a) Woman-Owned Business Enterprise 525 Wythe Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703-370-1930 Fax: 703-370-1931 Email: bnew@sna-intl.com www.sna-intl.com

[btrnew]

@emilystreetman @fedamann @skorps At some point, I'd like to revisit the sesamoid issue to figure out some way of associating a sesamoid with the hand/foot it from which it comes. Following current best practices I am creating foot bone groups and adding the sesamoids as separate elements, but there is no way to say that this sesamoid goes with this foot. So, we have inventoried bones that are floating out in cyberspace that I know from a paper inventory go with these foot bones. However, there is currently no way to reflect that within CoRA which, if the eventual goal is to be mostly paperless, presents a problem. Because sesamoids are floating and don't technically articulate, I'm not sure adding an articulation option would be the best course of action. However, assigning I-0X numbers at the time of inventory is not appropriate either because of what I-0X numbers specifically represent within our identification system.

Is there a way to capture association between elements that may not directly articulate/pair match/refit, but that an analyst can link to a set of bones with confidence (i.e. all bones found inside of a boot, in situ together but are too eroded to articulate, antemortem or postmortem fragmentation that is too eroded to directly refit etc. )? One idea would be to create another method of association under the "associations" tab for elements that is more similar to provenience (in a casket together, in a boot together, found in situ together, etc.) than provenance.

[emilystreetman]

@btrnew excellent points. Agreed that no simple solution presents itself. I'll think further on this.