Code Table Request - ear length

[dustymc]

Initial Request

Goal: Describe what you're trying to accomplish. This is the only necessary step to start this process. The Committee is available to assist with all other steps. Please clearly indicate any uncertainty or desired guidance if you proceed beyond this step.

On behalf of @jldunnum @campmlc and the RANGES team, and in preparation for #6111:

Merge

• ear from crown [ link ]
• ear from notch [ link ]

into one new 'ear' attribute

Proposed Value: Proposed new value. This should be clear and compatible with similar values in the relevant table and across Arctos.

ear length

Proposed Definition: Clear, complete, non-collection-type-specific functional definition of the value. Avoid discipline-specific terminology if possible, include parenthetically if unavoidable.

Length of the ear.

Attribute data type If the request is for an attribute, what values will be allowed?
free-text, categorical, or number+units depending upon the attribute (TBA)

number+units

Attribute units If numberical values should be accompanied by units, provide a link to the appropriate units table.

ctlength_units

Context: Describe why this new value is necessary and existing values are not.

We have method embedded in a term (and much of it may be guesses).

Table: Code Tables are http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm. Link to the specific table or value. This may involve multiple tables and will control datatype for Attributes. OtherID requests require BaseURL (and example) or explanation. Please ask for assistance if unsure.

https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctattribute_type

Collection type: Some code tables contain collection-type-specific values. collection_cde may be found from https://arctos.database.museum/home.cfm

carry over from existing

Priority: Please describe the urgency and/or choose a priority-label to the right. You should expect a response within two working days, and may utilize Arctos Contacts if you feel response is lacking.

? high ?

Example Data: Requests with clarifying sample data are generally much easier to understand and prioritize. Please attach or link to any representative data, in any form or format, which might help clarify the request.

I can work with collections to determine an appropriate migration pathway if this is approved in principle.

Discussion: Please reach out to anyone who might be affected by this change. Leave a comment or add this to the Committee agenda if you believe more focused conversation is necessary.

@ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators

Approval

All of the following must be checked before this may proceed.

The How-To Document should be followed. Pay particular attention to terminology (with emphasis on consistency) and documentation (with emphasis on functionality). No person should act in multiple roles; the submitter cannot also serve as a Code Table Administrator, for example.

• Code Table Administrator[1] - check and initial, comment, or thumbs-up to indicate that the request complies with the how-to documentation and has your approval
• Code Table Administrator[2] - check and initial, comment, or thumbs-up to indicate that the request complies with the how-to documentation and has your approval
• DBA - The request is functionally acceptable. The term is not a functional duplicate, and is compatible with existing data and code.
• DBA - Appropriate code or handlers are in place as necessary. (ID_References, Media Relationships, Encumbrances, etc. require particular attention)

Rejection

If you believe this request should not proceed, explain why here. Suggest any changes that would make the change acceptable, alternate (usually existing) paths to the same goals, etc.

1. Can a suitable solution be found here? If not, proceed to (2)
2. Can a suitable solution be found by Code Table Committee discussion? If not, proceed to (3)
3. Take the discussion to a monthly Arctos Working Group meeting for final resolution.

Implementation

Once all of the Approval Checklist is appropriately checked and there are no Rejection comments, or in special circumstances by decree of the Arctos Working Group, the change may be made.

Review everything one last time. Ensure the How-To has been followed. Ensure all checks have been made by appropriate personnel.

Make changes as described above. Ensure the URL of this Issue is included in the definition.

Close this Issue.

DO NOT modify Arctos Authorities in any way before all points in this Issue have been fully addressed; data loss may result.

Special Exemptions

In very specific cases and by prior approval of The Committee, the approval process may be skipped, and implementation requirements may be slightly altered. Please note here if you are proceeding under one of these use cases.

1. Adding an existing term to additional collection types may proceed immediately and without discussion, but doing so may also subject users to future cleanup efforts. If time allows, please review the term and definition as part of this step.
2. The Committee may grant special access on particular tables to particular users. This should be exercised with great caution only after several smooth test cases, and generally limited to "taxonomy-like" data such as International Commission on Stratigraphy terminology.

[cjconroy]

If the method is "from notch" or "crown", will those values be free text in method, or will there be a dropdown to avoid any misspellings?

[dustymc]

Method is free-text. (The idea that perhaps that need some kind of expansion - eg a way to formally reference a publication, or here perhaps a categorical "supermethod" - keeps coming up, but I don't know of anything concrete on that front.)

[Jegelewicz]

ear seems like a part name? ear length?

[jldunnum]

Yea agree, ear length and hind foot length for the other Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

…

________________________________ From: Teresa Mayfield-Meyer ***@***.***> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 5:31:02 PM To: ArctosDB/arctos ***@***.***> Cc: Jonathan Dunnum ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [ArctosDB/arctos] Code Table Request - ear (Issue #6307) [EXTERNAL] ear seems like a part name? ear length? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#6307 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AED2PA5Y7T2ANQUPFRMW63LXG2WLNANCNFSM6AAAAAAYHBVBJE>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mkoo]

Same as #6308 -- seems clear cut

Proposed New Value:
ear length
(with definition above)

Proposed Action:
Merge ear from crown [ link ]
and ear from notch [ link ]

@jldunnum said yes!

[Jegelewicz]

@dustymc let me know if you want me to create the new attribute or do anything else today.

[dustymc]

create the new attribute

Not until we're committed to this, and I don't know how to judge that. (And I don't know why the folks who want this, and the thing it's blocking, aren't here making things clear!)

Here's some data:

temp_ear.csv.zip

 attribute_type | guid_prefix | count 
----------------+-------------+-------
 ear from notch | ACUNHC:Mamm |   820
 ear from notch | ALMNH:Mamm  |   902
 ear from notch | ASNHC:Mamm  |  4620
 ear from notch | CHAS:Mamm   |    38
 ear from notch | CHAS:Teach  |    25
 ear from notch | DGR:Mamm    |     2
 ear from crown | DMNS:Mamm   |   104
 ear from notch | DMNS:Mamm   | 10467
 ear from notch | HMCM:Mamm   |    18
 ear from notch | HSUVM:Mamm  |    38
 ear from notch | MLZ:Mamm    |    17
 ear from notch | MMNH:Mamm   |   407
 ear from notch | MSB:Host    |   222
 ear from crown | MSB:Mamm    |    48
 ear from notch | MSB:Mamm    | 82958
 ear from crown | MVZ:Mamm    |   271
 ear from notch | MVZ:Mamm    | 24369
 ear from notch | MVZObs:Mamm |    36
 ear from notch | NMMNH:Mamm  |   293
 ear from crown | NMU:Mamm    |     2
 ear from notch | NMU:Mamm    |  2423
 ear from notch | OWU:Mamm    |     1
 ear from crown | UAM:Mamm    |    31
 ear from notch | UAM:Mamm    | 42957
 ear from crown | UCM:Mamm    |   514
 ear from notch | UCM:Mamm    |  9407
 ear from notch | UCSC:Mamm   |   271
 ear from notch | UMNH:Mamm   | 15484
 ear from notch | UMZM:Mamm   |  6110
 ear from notch | UNCG:Mamm   |   637
 ear from crown | UNR:Mamm    |     2
 ear from notch | UNR:Mamm    |  1899
 ear from notch | UTEP:Mamm   |   296
 ear from notch | UTEP:Teach  |     8
 ear from crown | UWBM:Mamm   |     4
 ear from notch | UWBM:Mamm   | 47544
 ear from notch | UWYMV:Mamm  |   115
 ear from notch | WNMU:Mamm   |    16
(38 rows)

@ebraker
@bryansmclean
@mkoo
@campmlc
@sharonjansa
@barke042
@amgunderson
@mvzhuang
@cjconroy
@makaylaeasley
@wellerjes
@asemerdj
@keg34
@jebrad
@babogan
@AdrienneRaniszewski
@acdoll
@jldunnum
@jrdemboski
@msbparasites
@ewommack
@kderieg322079
@lin-fred
@adhornsby
@droberts49

[bryansmclean]

This seems good to me (speaking on behalf of RANGES).

[ebraker]

I'm a bit worried about losing precision so I would advocate for an ear_length_methods code table that includes "from notch" and "from crown" as I'm certain a goodly amount of our volunteers and students will forget to record "from notch" as free text when entering records. There's still Remarks to accommodate pubs and other methods, plus the potential to expand the code table should we start measuring ears in novel ways, or need to add "other" and punt specifics to the Remarks field.

[dustymc]

I opened another issue for possible method change discussion.

I can prefix method with the current attribute type (or whatever), which I'm sure will be sufficient to update from if that discussion comes to some actionable state.

[Jegelewicz]

I'm a bit worried about losing precision

Might be mitigated by #6510

[dustymc]

I'm not sure what to do here - boxes are checked, but there's what looks like an objection. @ArctosDB/arctos-working-group-officers advice please.

[Jegelewicz]

@ebraker can we go ahead?

[dustymc]

@adhornsby to download users must go through...

Would adding a "these aren't the full data...." disclaimer to that alleviate any concerns?

[Jegelewicz]

These are summary data, for more complex information that includes all possible data, .....

[Jegelewicz]

If we merge, then method needs to be appended to the value and units in flat.

But nobody wants to merge. These are two different things. At some point we will need ear length?