Arctos: Change "Edit Non-classification Data" to read "Edit Taxonomic Relationships"

[sharpphyl]

As part of the Taxonomic Committee's review of the documentation on taxonomy, I agreed to edit what's there and create some step-by-step instructions for the How To section. It's a very worthwhile project as describing the process reveals many inconsistencies in our terms and words that can be quite confusing when you write instructions on how to use them. I'm entering each of these as a separate issue so we can close them down if we don't agree or when we complete the task if we're all in agreement. (Like Dusty, I'm getting overwhelmed by all that we're trying to do so I'll try to keep all this simple.)

On the taxon home page and the taxon editing page, there are multiple uses of the term "non-classification data." The upper one links you to the screen where you can establish a taxonomic relationship, common name, or delete the taxon. This link is on both pages.

This is the screen you link to.

The second includes the non-classification terms author, authority, taxon status, etc.

I don't think most users notice the difference between non-classification data and non-classification terms. I just noticed it this morning for the first time.

Describe the solution you'd like
I'd like to establish a different name for the activities on the second screen where primarily taxon relationships are established. I would suggest [Edit taxon relationship] which I realize doesn't include Add Common Name and Delete Taxon.

Describe alternatives you've considered
I'm open to other suggestions including putting the common name as a "non-classification term" on the main edit page and a separate link to a screen to delete the taxon. That might be confusing as it would be right next to [Delete Classification]. Hopefully everyone editing taxonomy understands the difference - and we might need to emphasize that on those screens. We could add explanatory pop-ups if needed.

Additional context
Only a handful of people edit taxonomy, so all these changes need to viewed against the return. However, as Arctos grows, it would be good for most of the taxonomic steps to be relatively easy to follow.

Priority
I would like to have this resolved by date: We have a webinar on December 11 and it would be good to have any adjustments made before that so the webinar isn't immediately out-of-date. Same for the How to instructions which I'd like to finalize and post before the holidays but there is no true deadline.

[dustymc]

difference between non-classification data and non-classification terms

Yea, I hate that vocabulary too.

"non-classification terms" are things where taxon_term.position_in_classification is NULL (they're not ordered), and can also be identified by having a "no" marker for "classification?" on http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTTAXON_TERM.

Then I call http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=CTTAXONOMY_SOURCE "classifications" because "source_authority" is also a non-classification term and words are hard...

And I call this thing...

a "classification" because it is, sorta. That's probably most structurally-correct because it's all glued together with a classification_id.

And I probably call this...

a classification too, because I don't know what else to call it.

The other thing is "things attached to the name." You can

• delete the name (if it's not used)
• edit the name (if it's not used)
• link publications
• create/edit/delete relationships
• create/edit/delete common names

from that form, so I'm not really thrilled with the idea of ignoring 4/5 of the possibilities in the label.

My preferred solution of course remains just getting rid of the whole thing - https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1698. We still have to talk about taxonomy so working out a lingo seems very useful, even if we don't use it for that particular form.

[sharpphyl]

I agree that a lot of our terms could use editing. Can we start with just a few and then fine tune the taxon page as needed? I think we all understand what's in a classification which is central to the taxonomy. It's the non-classification items that need restructuring.

At the very top of the Edit Classification Page, it reads:

editing guidelines
Editing Arctos classification for Cepolidae (classification_id=10915465)
[ View Taxon Page ] [ Edit Non-Classification Data ] [ Delete Classification ]

1. Change [Edit Non-classification data] to [Add taxon relationship].
2. Add [Delete Taxon Name] and separate the Delete screen from the Taxon Relationship screen. There's too much on that screen unless we reformat it.
3. Move the "add common name" field to a Non-Classification term - adding it to the CT_TAXONTERM and to the drop-down menu.
4. Add [Add Related Publication] and add some space between that and the Taxon Relationship but they could be on the same screen.

The result would be:
editing guidelines
Editing Arctos classification for Cepolidae (classification_id=10915465)
[ View Taxon Page ] [Add taxon relationship ] [Add Related Publication] [ Delete this Classification ][Delete Taxon Name]

Now, there should only be one set of "non-classification" data on this page. I would change the name from Non-Classification Terms to Non-Classification Data. We use the word Term in multiple places so it loses meaning. I would limit Term to the Taxon Classification.

Also on the Taxon Relationship page we have a field to change the Scientific Name. Now that it is autogenerated, shouldn't we delete that? Simplify!

As for removing the ability to edit single-record taxonomy tool, #1698, I understand your goal is consistency, but that won't work. I'll make my further comments there.

[Jegelewicz]

Yes, please.

[campmlc]

Can we have these name changes suggested by Phyllis completed before the Dec 11 webinar? @dustymc

[Jegelewicz]

After the webinar review today, here is what I think we should do to clarify the wording for the pages seen by those editing taxa

Change this:

to this:
Taxonomy Details for Abeona aurora
[Edit Taxon Relationships]

[sharpphyl]

Dusty, We're trying to get this resolved before the webinar next week. I concur with Teresa's comment that we change [Edit non-classification data] to [Edit Taxon Relationships]. I have a few other revisions to request, if possible, before our webinar next week. I've tried to simplify them from my original request.

I'll repeat that on the relationship screen, you can edit the Scientific Name. But since that's autogenerated, that option should be deleted.

Also, at the very top of the relationship screen, it reads: Return to taxon overview to edit classifications. Can we make that consistent with the link on the "classification page" which reads" [View Taxon Page]. You actually still have to click "Edit Classification" to edit the classification, so that's not accurate.

Lastly, are you able to put a row between the activities on that screen so they're easier to read and make them consistent?

Related Publications

Related Taxa (no colon)

Common Names

The red square for taxon name deletion is fine.

Thanks.

[Jegelewicz]

Agree with above.

[dustymc]

Change [Edit Non-classification data] to [Add taxon relationship].

I REALLY dislike this; it covers about 1/3 of what you can do to about 1/4 of the data on that page.

separate the Delete screen from the Taxon Relationship

Hu? A button that goes to a page that just has a button like the one you just clicked or ????

Move the "add common name" field to a Non-Classification term - adding it to the CT_TAXONTERM and to the drop-down menu.

I can't say I disagree with the modeling - that's more like where common names belong (unless we move to taxon concepts, then it's just a ton of extra data to manage) - but this is a major structural change to the core model.

there should only be one set of "non-classification" data on this page.

Hu? Marked-up screenshot? I don't know what this means.

change the name from Non-Classification Terms to Non-Classification Data.

done

Taxon Relationship page we have a field to change the Scientific Name. Now that it is autogenerated, shouldn't we delete that? Simplify!

The "relationships and more" (??) page is things that apply to the NAME. If you edit something there, you are editing the NAME, NOT classification data.

There's a taxon_term of term_type "scientific_name" as well - it's auto-generated, not displayed, and exists for my purposes (make the hierarchical editor work and such).

Return to taxon overview to edit classifications.

That's accurate, just poorly worded. It's now...

<br><a href="/name/#thisname.scientific_name#">[View Taxon Page]</a> then click to edit classifications

put a row between the activities

done

[Jegelewicz]

Change [Edit Non-classification data] to [Add taxon relationship].

I REALLY dislike this; it covers about 1/3 of what you can do to about 1/4 of the data on that page.

We're trying to get this resolved before the webinar next week. I concur with Teresa's comment that we change [Edit non-classification data] to [Edit Taxon Relationships].

We have had a discussion about this and we do think everything there (except DELETE and EDIT) is a relationship of sorts (related taxa, related publications, related common names) and we want to differentiate this stuff from Non-Classification Terms which is used on the [Edit Classifications] page.

If you have a better idea, chime in, but we want this changed as it is just too close to the verbiage used for something completely different. (perhaps [Edit Taxon Name Data]?)

Taxon Relationship page we have a field to change the Scientific Name. Now that it is autogenerated, shouldn't we delete that? Simplify!

The "relationships and more" (??) page is things that apply to the NAME. If you edit something there, you are editing the NAME, NOT classification data.

Yes, and MY concern is that we are being pretty nonchalant about that! If someone changes a name, won't that change any identifications using that name? Shouldn't this be a little harder to get at? I would like to remove the ability to change that name so easily unless I am mistaken about the trouble it might cause....

[dustymc]

related taxa, related publications, related common names

Hu - that does make sense, but I obviously didn't figure it out until now. And classifications are in the same sort of relationship.

[Edit Taxon Name Data]?

Meh.

[Edit Name + Related Data] ??????

pretty nonchalant about that

https://github.com/ArctosDB/DDL/blob/master/triggers/uam_triggers/taxon_name.sql

You can't change used names; you can do whatever you want until they're used.

[Jegelewicz]

I like the change to [Edit Name + Related Data]

Can we do a bit more cleanup/simplification?

In the Edit Non-Classification Data block can we get rid of "display_name" in the "possibly missing" section? You can't add it, so let's not confuse users and have them searching everywhere for a place to do so.

Instead of

Scientific_name will be auto-generated; anything you do here will be over-written
Display_name will be auto-generated; anything you do here will be over-written

Please say

Scientific_name and Display_name will be auto-generated

Again, you can't enter these here, so why confuse the issue?

In the Classification Terms block can we get rid of "scientific_name" in the "possibly missing" section? You can't add it, so let's not confuse users and have them searching everywhere for a place to do so.

Instead of

Order is important here - "large" (eg, kingdom) at top to "small" (eg, subspecies) at bottom. Drag rows to sort. TermType will be ignored if Term is empty. Term will be saved regardless of TermType; unranked terms are OK.

Please use the same font as "These are paired terms; unpaired terms - those with either side blank - will be DELETED." above and format it like this:

• Order of these terms is important - more inclusive terms (eg, kingdom) should be at the top and progress through more specific terms (eg, subspecies) at the bottom.
• Drag the rows to sort them.
• Term Type will be ignored if the associated Term field is empty.
• Term will be saved regardless of Term Type; unranked terms are accepted.

And finally, what does this stuff mean?

sugGenus: Barisia
sugSpecies: Barisia ciliaris
sugGenus: Barisia
sugSubpecies:
sugInfUnkRnk:

Is this something useful? If so, we need to make it more user friendly. I'll make a suggestion when I have an idea what it is doing.

[Jegelewicz]

Also, for consistency, can we change this to [Edit Name + Related Data] as well?

[sharpphyl]

That would be very helpful. Thanks.

[dustymc]

change this to [Edi

Done.

the rest

I think we need to talk. Are we certain that investing in the form that causes most taxonomy problems (==finding specimen problems) is the way forward? Are we certain that this can't be done in the hierarchical editor, or some other hierarchical editor, or in some other fashion that doesn't directly cause ~99% of what we've been dealing with for the last couple months?

I don't even know if we can all use hierarchical data, I don't have a solution in mind, I just see the messes that form leaves behind. We keep talking about having a data custodian and such; doing something about the tools that cause the most problems when we can seems like a step in that direction, and it's one which we can make on our own.

[DerekSikes]

I need to be able to add a species name from time to time. I don't know how
to use the hierarchical editor yet but from what I've seen it's much more
complicated.

I'm in favor of making improvements to the single name editor. If there was
some way to flag inconsistencies, search for these flags and allow curators
to make edits to eliminate them, I'd vote for that.

For example, while looking at the single name editor if a species in Genus
A is in Family X but throughout the rest of Arctos classification (I'd
prefer this if it was limited to just names tied to my collection) Genus A
is in Family Y there'd be a red flag with an error message that would go
away if I changed the family to Y.

-Derek

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 7:27 AM dustymc [e-mail] wrote:

change this to [Edi

Done.

the rest

I think we need to talk. Are we certain that investing in the form that
causes most taxonomy problems (==finding specimen problems) is the way
forward? Are we certain that this can't be done in the hierarchical editor,
or some other hierarchical editor, or in some other fashion that doesn't
directly cause ~99% of what we've been dealing with for the last couple
months?

I don't even know if we can all use hierarchical data, I don't have a
solution in mind, I just see the messes that form leaves behind. We keep
talking about having a data custodian and such; doing something about the
tools that cause the most problems when we can seems like a step in that
direction, and it's one which we can make on our own.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/1819#issuecomment-447906828,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIraM8Af7q_o1yGMfy3DyZg23W1iScUSks5u58X-gaJpZM4Yzhgc
.

--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
Professor of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
1962 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960

[email protected]

phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

University of Alaska Museum - search 400,276 digitized arthropod records
http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento_all
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological
Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological
Network" at
http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us http://www.akentsoc.org/contact.php