Rename "Audubon" to "Audiovisual"

[peterdesmet]

This PR changes every occurrence of Audubon to Audiovisual. Audio-visual has also been renamed to Audiovisual. These changes only affects files in this repository, so more changes might be needed on e.g. the TDWG website.

Exceptions

The change from Audubon to Audiovisual has not been done for:

• Binary files (pdf and docx)
• The historical and views/historical directory

File names

File names are not affected, except for:

• 3d/charter_3d_task_group_of_audiovisual_core_2019-06-11.docx
• 3d/charter_3d_task_group_of_audiovisual_core_2019-06-11.pdf
• audiovisual-core_maintenance-group_charter.md

Older versions of standard

This change does not retain the name "Audubon Core" anywhere, except when specifically referenced as "previously Audubon Core". That means that older versions of the standard have been affected as well:

• structure-2013-10-23.md
• structure-2020-01-27.md
• subtype-2020-10-13.md
• termlist-2013-10-23.md
• termlist-2020-01-27.md
• termlist-2020-08-23.md
• termlist-2020-10-13.md
• termlist-2021-02-01.md
• termlist-2021-10-05.md

@baskaufs @edwbaker @tdwg/ac please review carefully. I'd like to implement this change before updating the site design.

[danstowell]

Looks good to me. Thanks for doing this carefully.

I was a little nervous of editing in older documents such as "termlist-2013-*" since in some sense it's a historical document too. But in the end I think this PR is a good compromise.

We might want to make sure that the phrase "Audubon Core" does appear often enough in our materials, for search-engine purposes etc.

[baskaufs]

I haven't had time to look this over carefully, but I don't think we should change the titles of the older versions. If we think we must, we can add a comment like "now called Audiovisual Core". But those versions may be cited by name and I don't think it's appropriate to change them after the fact.

We also talked about having something on the website explaining about why we changed the name. But I don't think anybody has written that yet. It probably should be there before we "flip the switch". @rebeccasnyder @magpiedin were either of you thinking of writing this?

[peterdesmet]

@baskaufs

but I don't think we should change the titles of the older versions.

Should I then revert the change in:

• docs/structure-2013-10-23.md
• docs/structure-2020-01-27.md
• docs/subtype-2020-10-13.md
• docs/termlist-2013-10-23.md
• docs/termlist-2020-01-27.md
• docs/termlist-2020-08-23.md
• docs/termlist-2020-10-13.md
• docs/termlist-2021-02-01.md
• docs/termlist-2021-10-05.md

Are those files generated by code btw? Is an update in the code in this PR going to overwrite them anyway on a new build?

Also, is there a need to release a:

• docs/termlist-2023-xx-xx.md

[baskaufs]

I would say, yes, revert those unless others disagree.

No, the new versions are generated by script, but currently the old versions are just archived by changing the name of the previously most recent version when the new one is added. The script appends the new terms metadata to a static header file so if the name is changed in that header file, it will automatically be included in all future code-generated pages.

OK, I wrote about 5 paragraphs of junk ponderings and then just deleted them. Here is what I think we need to do:

• Create dated versions of all of the list of terms docs and don't apply the name changes to them. I can do that manually once we confirm that we are ready to do this.
• merge this pull request to change all the names in the current docs, templates, scripts, etc.
• I can then fix the dates on the current docs to reflect the date of the change and then update all of the metadata about the docs in the rs.tdwg.org repo.

Once that is done, then all subsequent new docs will be generated with the correct names. I think that's the simplest solution if we think that the name change spans new versions of the docs (which was what I convinced myself of in the 5 deleted paragraphs).

[baskaufs]

OK, I made a few comments in the diff. There was one change in code that would break something and a few comments about not changing two historical documents. I also did not comment on the various historical versions, which we discussed in the issue tracker and probably should be reverted. Otherwise I think all of the changes are OK.

[peterdesmet]

@baskaufs I have done all the requested reverts. I'll leave the rest of your todo to you: #252 (comment)

[peterdesmet]

I also noticed that one link was changed, from:

https://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/Audubon_Core
to
https://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/Audiovisual_Core

Both currently give 504 for me

[baskaufs]

@peterdesmet OK, thanks!

I'm not sure that the terms.tdwg.org wiki is still operational, or what the long-term plans are for it. If it isn't going to be maintained, we should probably get rid of the link.

I'll allow some time for @edwbaker to weigh in if he has any feedback. If not, in a few days I'll go ahead and generate the versions I mentioned and you should be able to merge the pull request.

[baskaufs]

@peterdesmet I have created dated versions of all of the current standards documents in the master. That will put this branch a commit behind, but I don't think that should cause any conflict since the ones I created are all new documents. So I think you can just go ahead and do the merge now. When that's done, I'll update all of the dates in the headers of the (new) current versions to reflect the new issued date and link them back to the dated previous versions.

[peterdesmet]

@baskaufs Do I understand correctly that:

1. Current documents get edited over time and from time to time a snapshot of them is created as a dated version?
2. You created a snapshot of all current documents in b157c28 that captures any changes since their last dated version (if any) but excluding the Audubon to Audiovisual name change (from this branch)?
3. Before merging this branch, the current and last dated version of the documents in master are the same.
4. By merging this branch, the current documents will continue to deviate from their last dated version again, by updating the term Audubon to Audiovisual. They might accumulate more changes later on, until 1 is done again?

[baskaufs]

@peterdesmet You are entirely correct on 1-3. This is the model:

4. Is also generally correct, although at least theoretically if there were any changes, they would generate a new dated version. So they wouldn't really accumulate. As a practical matter, we might make some cosmetic edits before this current round of updating is complete.

[peterdesmet]

Ok, merged into master. Let me know in #250 when I can start rebuilding the website with the new TDWG theme.

[baskaufs]

Wiil do. I will try to fix the various metadata-related stuff later today.