Suggestion to change the name of vocabulary

[zedomel]

Hi,

since we have almost finished the terms review and most of the terms are about floral visitors and not just pollinators (legitimate pollinator), I would like to suggest to change the vocabulary's name to:

Plant-Floral Visitors Interactions Vocabulary.

It looks more general, as it really is, and we can avoid any misunderstanding of what is a pollinator: When a floral visitor is a pollinator?

thx.

[arech2003]

Dear Zedomel, your rationale is right but we do need the information about the real pollinators separated from the floral visitors. If we have other field where proper pollinators will be registered then I agree with this change, otherwise it must be in the present from to insure this information in the database. Best regards!

[zedomel]

Ho @arech2003,

it is just a suggestion to change the name of the vocabulary. It does not impact on the definitions of any of the terms. I'm just suggesting it because the vocabulary includes terms for floral visitors and not only pollinators.

Remember that when we were defining the terms we took care to avoid the usage of the word pollinator in favor of floral visitor. So why are we calling it Plant-Pollinator Interactions Vocabulary or Standard if we are always talking about floral visitors.

Answering your. Yes, we have specific means to capture true pollinators. In that case the interaction type should be filled with the pollinates or pollinatedBy, instead of visitsFlowerOf or flowersVisitedBy. We also have other term in the controlled vocabulary for that.

I will create an issue with all controlled vocabulary for interaction type. Each value in the controlled vocab must have a formal definition. For example:
pollinates: touches reproductive structures of a flower

[pjbergamo]

Hi, I do not have a definitive answer for this. On one hand, it is more correct to use Floral Visitors (as it is more general and includes pollinators). This is why we were careful in using 'floral visitors' in the definitions. On the other hand, 'Plant-Pollinator' is more appealing. This is because we are inserted in the 'pollination ecology' literature (it is not called 'floral visiting ecology'). Thus, I would say that we can keep 'plant-pollinator' as the vocabulary name while keeping floral visitors in the definitions. All the best, Pedro

…

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 1:58 PM José Augusto Salim ***@***.***> wrote: Ho @arech2003 <https://github.com/arech2003>, it is just a suggestion to change the name of the vocabulary. It does not impact on the definitions of any of the terms. I'm just suggesting it because the vocabulary includes terms for *floral visitors* and not only *pollinators*. Remember that when we were defining the terms we took care to avoid the usage of the word *pollinator* in favor of *floral visitor*. So why are we calling it *Plant-Pollinator Interactions* Vocabulary or Standard if we are always talking about *floral visitors*. Answering your. Yes, we have specific means to capture true pollinators. In that case the *interaction type* should be filled with the *pollinates* or *pollinatedBy*, instead of *visitsFlowerOf* or *flowersVisitedBy*. We also have other term in the controlled vocabulary for that. I will create an issue with all controlled vocabulary for *interaction type*. Each value in the controlled vocab must have a formal definition. For example: *pollinates*: touches reproductive structures of a flower — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#61 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK6P642VVYGIZMGYZUZKWSDTNQAKPANCNFSM44ZNR7PQ> .

-- Pedro J. Bergamo Postdoctoral fellow Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden Pacheco Leão St 915, 22460-030 Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

[zedomel]

Good.

So, can we prepare a good definition for the vocabulary itself? A general description of the vocabulary, and explicit that the vocabulary applies to floral visitors and not only pollinators.

I will prepare a draft description and then we ca develop it together.

abs.