-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
reproductive category #7364
Comments
So this would be "reproductive category" or "reproductive status", and we could include all of the above as controlled vocabulary options, as well as potentially other terms related to other taxa - e.g. birds ("laying"), reptiles (gravid) etc? |
Hi all, sorry for delay in responding. From what I can tell, this potential solution leaves off the trait terms, and only preserves their values. The terms are necessary for the community to harvest specific traits for research and biodiversity monitoring. The only way this might work is to prepend values with the trait terms (e.g., lactation::not lactating) |
For example, the recent plan to map testis attributes to more general "gonad" attributes still allows the trait term to be tracked confidently, as long as we can assume that the term "gonad" is a synonym of "testis", which is safe. Does this proposal do that? Im happy to discuss on a call if needed. |
Would it be possible to discuss at the next code table meeting next Thursday March 4 at 4pm your time, or perhaps during the prior issues meeting? |
That first time should work! |
Great! The link is on the calendar. |
I'm not available at that time, but that shouldn't matter.
I don't know what this means; some example data (and questions that might be asked of it) would be really useful. |
Im actually dodging proposals and defenses, and one just got scheduled for this Thursday. I will need to switch to another AWG issues meeting. @campmlc or @Jegelewicz would you pick one and let me know which works best?? |
@dustymc I was saying that this proposed change seems to lose the entity itself (for example, "lactation" or "lactation status"). Could become problematic if very standardized values arent used, which we know occurs. For example, when reviewing a repro trait data field, which trait should one match "enlarged" or "descended" or "not" back to? As a data user, I would think one would prefer to retain the specific attribute terms such that this reads, e.g., "nipple enlargement: enlarged", "testes position: descended", or "lactation status: not". |
Next week Thursday April 4 at 2pm MDT/4pm EDT is the code table meeting, so that would be the best time to meet. Does that work?
|
Works for me! |
One attribute = reproductive description with a code table of possible options vagina perforated |
@jldunnum @bryansmclean joined the CT committee today-- tentatively agreement on this method but the list needs to be reviewed, edited, confirmed by the RANGES folks before our next meeting. We discussed the pros/cons for this and might be useful to include future UI twaeks for data entry (once this is settled) |
Im trying to re-do a master list of attributes and then the categories of this particular attribute we are discussing on this thread. I think a prefix of some kind would really help within this attribute to organize very different values by general trait type. Did we discuss this and is it possible? Prefixes could follow the, e.g., ranges list of traits but wouldnt have to. e.g., |
I was really making an effort to remove punctuation from code table terms. If we do this, we cannot keep trying to do that. |
Is there a functional reason for not using punctuation? We already have it in the examined/detected code tables, e.g. "detected" = "virus:Orthohantavirus". If we remove punctuation, how will those code table values be changed? |
Is there an alternative way we can make the long list of repro values more "ordered"? Open to suggestions. |
Agreed! We did that based on discussions with the Arctos Working Group!
…______________________________________________________________
Jonathan L. Dunnum Ph.D. (he, him, his)
Senior Collection Manager
Division of Mammals, Museum of Southwestern Biology
Research Assistant Professor (LAT)
Department of Biology
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
(505) 277-9262
Fax (505) 277-1351
Chair, Systematic Collections Committee, American Society of Mammalogists
Latin American Fellowship Committee, ASM
MSB Mammals website: http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/index.html
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MSBDivisionofMammals
Shipping Address:
Museum of Southwestern Biology
Division of Mammals
University of New Mexico
CERIA Bldg 83, Room 204
Albuquerque, NM 87131
________________________________
From: Mariel Campbell ***@***.***>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:00 AM
To: ArctosDB/arctos ***@***.***>
Cc: Jonathan Dunnum ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [ArctosDB/arctos] reproductive category (Issue #7364)
[EXTERNAL]
Is there a functional reason for not using punctuation? We already have it in the examined/detected code tables, e.g. "detected" = "virus:Orthohantavirus". If we remove punctuation, how will those code table values be changed?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#7364 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AED2PAYXIMVGH7BDRPNNZSTY62AQLAVCNFSM6AAAAABCVVIHLKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANZSHAYTINBXHA>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
I would like to get this draft attribute list posted here so that we can all move forward entering/bulkloading traits. Is some kind of prefix or punctuation possible? |
The use of punctuation can cause issues when transferring data to other formats as the punctuation can signal some sort of break in the data (commas are a particular problem for CSV). From my perspective, it also indicates that our term means more than one thing (not normal). I am by no means an expert, but we just keep doing things and we have yet to develop any rules for code tables - Formatting Rules for CT Terms was started and quickly forgotten as we run around putting out fires and thinking narrowly about the most pressing issue. Prefixes seem like they belong in code table metadata. To be used internally for sorting and broader searches. The list proposed here sorts together: lactating no |
Don't think "scrotal abdominal" and "scrotal inguinal" are correct terms |
Sorry - I am not an expert - just trying to make this work - see new list. |
No worries just trying to understand. Why are we using scrotal as the main term as opposed to testes or gonad? Scrotal or abdominal are modifiers of the testes. We use nipples and vagina so seems like we should use testes. "testes scrotal", testes abdominal, testes inguinal |
@Jegelewicz is trying to consolidate all the various issues, which is a bit confusing. Do we have an updated list as requested by RANGES? Is the request for testes scrotal, testes nonscrotal, or for testes abdominal, testes inguinal? Ditto for vagina perforated vs not vs vagina open, vagina closed? |
see new list |
The following brings it more in line with proposed ranges trait terms (which are now prefixes below). lactation no nipple size enlarged parity multiparous pregnancy no testis position non-scrotal vaginal perforation closed |
@bryansmclean do you really need the " not" values? From a data entry perspective and from UI and download, it seems simpler wording would be much better from a functional perspective. For example, we record "vagina open" and vagina closed" in the field. To do data entry, a student will have to scroll through a drop-down with extra verbiage and confusingly similar terms separated only by a "not". This is a recipe for error. For Arctos data entry and display purposes, could we use the shorter, clearer, simpler two-word terms and put the more complex definition in the documentation? |
Im sure this can be tweaked - which ones are you eyeing as error-prone besides the vaginal perforation values? |
Any way to convert all the choices into just two words? |
Nipples enlarged Vagina open Lactating yes Pregnant yes Note I changed the initial noun to an adjective, because using the noun is confusing. Does pregnancy test mean right now, or anytime? |
Darn phone autocorrect: I meant "Pregnancy yes" is confusing relative to "pregnant yes" because the noun has no temporal component. |
i think it should be "pregnant yes", referring to the state at time of collection |
... attribute determination. Arctos is more than dead rats, this could be used for more than collection, metadata is critical! Perhaps starting a spreadsheet would facilitate the conversation (and provide an eventual place for definitions)? |
Someone remind me why this isn't https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctexamined_detected - vague ideas that perhaps we've discussed such things at some point.... |
Proposal: Instead of creating many very specific code tables, can we have one 'category' code table with...
#6594
vagina perforated
closed unplugged
closed plugged
#6593
nulliparous
primiparous
multiparous
parous
#6408
lactating
not lactating
#6595
nipples enlarged
#6409
pregnant
not pregnant
etc
@ccicero @mkoo @ebraker @Jegelewicz
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: