Closed ben-norton closed 1 year ago
For reference, the vocab is currently:
none
scent
food <--
visual
acoustic
other <--
Arrows indicate the terms that @ben-norton considers problematic.
@ben-norton this definition was taken directly from WI documentation ;) But I get your point and agree about removing terms food
and other
.
Maybe still useful to discuss how one can provide more details about bait used. using comments
field?
Yes, we can refer to comments
field. We already do for other fields too.
I have created a separate issue for other
, since it also applies to featureType
, see #22.
We were already deviating from WI by changing meat
to food
. I agree it deviates from the sensory bait categories:
none
scent
visual
acoustic
food <-- odd category
But is it always possible to translate food/meat
to one of the sensory values? I'd like to get input from @jimcasaer @Tim-Hofmeester @yliefting etc.
Two issues to consider revising in the baitUse controlled vocabulary (split into two issues if needed). First, I think the sensory-based approach is the right strategy. These issues are mainly associated with a departure from this strategy.
The term 'food' in baitUse should be removed for two main reasons:
The term 'other' should be removed or the parent term should be revised. One of the four main principles for creating controlled vocabularies is the elimination of ambiguity (ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005). 'Other' is a commonly appended term to controlled vocabularies. The merit is clear. However, ambiguity in any form detracts from the primary functions of a controlled vocabulary (see ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005). There are exceptions to the use of 'other', but I don't think this is one.