part cleanup - Quill #3189
Comments
ewommack
added
Function-CodeTables
Priority-Normal (Not urgent)
|
This seems reasonable.
…On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 8:00 PM Elizabeth Wommack ***@***.***> wrote:
* [EXTERNAL]*
Issue Documentation is
http://handbook.arctosdb.org/how_to/How-to-Use-Issues-in-Arctos.html
*Goal*
I'm not actually sure if this should be a part, but I have a Porcupine
quill removed from the knee joint of a Mountain Lion during prep. The quill
was saved, and I would like to include it some how with the specimen record.
Would this be more discoverable as its own part, or maybe it is such an
odd occurrence it should just be listed as an unknown part or hair?
*Table*
Mammal parts
<https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecimen_part_name&coln=Mamm>
*Value*
Quill
*Definition*
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/porcupine-quills-reveal-their-prickly-secrets#:~:text=Porcupines%20are%20famed%20for%20their,the%20animals%20against%20natural%20predators.&text=The%20North%20American%20porcupine%20has,or%20so%20nearest%20its%20tip
.
*Collection type*
Mamm
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3189>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBGUIJFUYHOQASLKGUDSOC7VJANCNFSM4TJP7AOA>
.
|
|
#2423 is relevant |
|
So that would be part = "hair", part attribute = "quill"?
Under that data structure, if someone searches for "quill" via the part
name, will they be able to find it, even though the data is in part
attribute? If not, how will people know to search under attributes vs part
name?
…On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:18 AM dustymc ***@***.***> wrote:
* [EXTERNAL]*
#2423 <#2423> is relevant
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3189 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBEWKHGAZPF5HXMBUFTSOF5HBANCNFSM4TJP7AOA>
.
|
Something like that, potentially.
That's just a UI problem - somewhat similar to what we do for taxonomy, might have a similar solution. |
|
It would be good if " just a UI problem" could be followed by an acceptable
UI solution.
…On Wed, Nov 4, 2020, 10:00 AM dustymc ***@***.***> wrote:
* [EXTERNAL]*
part = "hair", part attribute = "quill"?
Something like that, potentially.
know to search
That's just a UI problem - somewhat similar to what we do for taxonomy,
might have a similar solution.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3189 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBENGC3SKPD4EAPQCADSOGCCPANCNFSM4TJP7AOA>
.
|
|
@ewommack I would catalog the quill as a separate item and relate it to the mountain lion. As for the part name quill - I think we should add it until we have a real method for simplifying part names. |
No objections. |
|
HMMMM - was going to add, but Wikipedia has this to say about porcupine quills:
the Wikipedia says this about spines:
So - changing my stance and suggesting that @ewommack use "spine" as the part name with the definition as above. |
|
My issue with that is searchability. Will anyone know to search on "spine"
when looking for quill? How do we allow searches on taxon specific terms if
they are lumped under terms that are not typically used?
…On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:39 AM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < ***@***.***> wrote:
* [EXTERNAL]*
HMMMM - was going to add, but Wikipedia has this to say about porcupine
quills <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcupine#Quills>:
Porcupines' quills, or spines, take on various forms, depending on the
species, but all are modified hairs coated with thick plates of keratin,
spine is already a part in Arctos and the Wikipedia says this about spines
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spine_(zoology)>:
In a zoological context, spines are hard, needle-like anatomical
structures found in both vertebrate and invertebrate species. The spines of
most spiny mammals are modified hairs, with a spongy center covered in a
thick, hard layer of keratin and a sharp, sometimes barbed tip.
So - changing my stance and suggesting that @ewommack
<https://github.com/ewommack> use "spine" as the part name.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3189 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBE2R2TCRCUWCVBL6QDSOLIL5ANCNFSM4TJP7AOA>
.
|
|
quill isn't in the code table - so you cannot search it. How many people will be looking for just "quill"? |
|
Well, if I wanted to find a quill, I would type quill in part name. I would
not know to type spine or hair. This is where perhaps a part ontology with
synonyms would be useful. In the meantime, I would suggest we add quill as
a part name or attribute, but if we do it as an attribute, make a general
search in the UI which would search for both. But we know that solution
creates timeout issues.
…On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:11 AM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < ***@***.***> wrote:
* [EXTERNAL]*
quill isn't in the code table - so you cannot search it. How many people
will be looking for just "quill"?
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3189 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBBYRZLSD7LUIES7DULSOLTEDANCNFSM4TJP7AOA>
.
|
|
Ok, I'll find the quill and get it as its own catalog item...Is that the idea. |
|
@ewommack are you OK with spine or do you still want quill? |
|
We probably need a new value for https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctid_references as well. |
|
code table committee says add quill |
|
done |
|
Thanks @Jegelewicz. I pivoted away when another collection needed work, and haven't managed enough time to get back to this now. Thanks for working on it for me! |
|
Reopening - we now have better development of attributes and UI, suggest we move this to
There is one UWYMV:Mamm record using quill @ewommack |
dustymc
added
CodeTableCleanup
dustymc
changed the title
I really think that would be too confusing. I know porcupine quills are made out of hair, but I do not think anyone searching for a porcupine quill will understand to search for the part hair to get them. I think @campmlc brought up this point earlier in the issue. |
They don't have to; things change:
which also finds a bunch of...
... other stuff.
That should not be cryptically buried in a part name! "Correct" in this case would be to catalog the porcupine by itself and set up an "interaction" between the records (but that doesn't address the part name). |
Yeah no, that isn't going to happen. This is one quill pulled out of a Mountain Lion, there is no whole porcupine any where near this in the museum. And even if I did, I would still think that the only part for the porcupine would be quill and not hair. I think actually quills should be their own part because they are actually a different structure (https://animaldiversity.org/collections/spinesquills/). If you combine them with hair, then we should be combining claws with hair as well. It is all made from the same type of structure. |
|
I'm putting this on the AWG agenda (or I'm trying to - @Jegelewicz does the project still do that?). I don't have a solution for this particular situation, but I don't think a single hidden part should have this level of impact; this affects 1 of 727 authority values but only applies to 1 of 5,819,594 parts |
|
Add it to the google doc. The Agenda is already made up for the next meeting :). I just did a search of quill from parts on the search page and only found 20 things...all either of porcupines or made from porcupine quills: https://arctos.database.museum/saved/1636156071952_quill%20part |
Link?
Only one of them involves part_name=quill. |
|
I'd like to look at this part name from a different perspective. How many "quill" parts are there in Arctos? @ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators I think we should consider the potential for use when adding a term to a code table. With nearly 5 million records, does it make sense to have a part name that is used just once? For this case, using "hair" and putting "quill" in remark seems like a perfectly reasonable option. If we reach some critical mass of "hair" parts with "quill" in remark or a defined research purpose that requires a part, then we can consider adding a new part. |
|
I found a way that worked for our collection without needing the new part. |
|
@dustymc you can remove the part name. |
|
Nope, The Usual has happened: https://arctos.database.museum/guid/BYU:Edu:M-878 |
|
@Jegelewicz can you help move this forward before it goes backwards even more please? Still just the one. |
|
Closing based on 2023-09-21 AWG Code Table Committee discussion |
Issue Documentation is http://handbook.arctosdb.org/how_to/How-to-Use-Issues-in-Arctos.html
Goal
I'm not actually sure if this should be a part, but I have a Porcupine quill removed from the knee joint of a Mountain Lion during prep. The quill was saved, and I would like to include it some how with the specimen record.
Would this be more discoverable as its own part, or maybe it is such an odd occurrence it should just be listed as an unknown part or hair?
Table
Mammal parts
Value
Quill
Definition
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/porcupine-quills-reveal-their-prickly-secrets#:~:text=Porcupines%20are%20famed%20for%20their,the%20animals%20against%20natural%20predators.&text=The%20North%20American%20porcupine%20has,or%20so%20nearest%20its%20tip.
Collection type
Mamm
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: