Closed Rekyt closed 3 months ago
@Rekyt Thank you for looking so closely at the table! We recently changed how the matches/examples in other databases were being read in to better deal with multiple values in a cell. I've added the necessary corrections to fix these particular mistakes to that branch - https://github.com/traitecoevo/APD/commit/6301aa0fdbe0cf84f621158875a55948f8ffa10b
(It is hard to merge multiple branches simultaneously editing a csv file, and the columns have been edited on this branch as well.)
Thanks for the detailed example @Rekyt , very helpful!
Hi @ehwenk and @dfalster 👋
As told in the PR #24 I'm using the raw
APD_traits_input.csv
to get trait correspondence across databases.I noticed some issues with some columns in TRY (or at least that are non-standard?). I'm unsure about tackling these so I rather open an issue about them.
My routine is the following:
If I count the number of matched traits given the columns I get the following:
So 5 AusTraits traits, with non-empty columns have 0 matches given my extraction of TRY IDs.
If I go to see the strings in the columns I get:
For the first line, it matches back to a Trait Ontology definition, but not to a TRY trait. For leaf epidermis cell and bark thickness it's a matter of TRY IDs writing style. Also Bark thickness is written in two ways?! For plant lifespan, it's a link to a LEDA trait. Is this relevant here?
I've checked and these issue propagate to the RDF file.