Remove part preservation = fossil and change to cataloged item type FossilSpecimen

[Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS]

We currently have two ways of saying something is a fossil. The first is a part attribute, preservation = fossil. The second is cataloged item type FossilSpecimen. The second is necessary for our data to be correctly categorized by GBIF as a fossil. I'm beginning to think the part attribute is redundant (and is also cumbersome to use for specimens with either a lot of parts or a lot of part attributes). I can't think of an instance where it is actually necessary to indicate on a part-by-part basis that something is a fossil. Even if you have the original fossil and a reproduction of that fossil cataloged together, you can still enter preservation = reproduction for the cast/print part.

Thoughts?

@Jegelewicz @KatherineLAnderson @WaigePilson @ronaldeng @aklompma

Making this a code table request:

Initial Request

Goal

Remove redundancy. See explanation above.

Table

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

Proposed Value

Convert part preservation = fossil to cataloged item type = FossilSpecimen

Helpful Actions

• Add the issue to the Code Table Management Project.

• 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.

• Add or revise the code table term/definition as described above. Ensure the URL of this Issue is included in the definition. URLs should be included as text, separated by spaced pipes. Do not include HTML in definitions.

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.

[Jegelewicz]

@dustymc can we get data on who is using part preservation = fossil?

[dustymc]

cataloged item type FossilSpecimen

I don't think those are quite the same thing, but that's probably just pedantic.

I can't think of an instance where it is actually necessary to indicate on a part-by-part basis that something is a fossil.

Hu. Someone always shows up and moves the goalpost around when there's a serious question about what is and is not a fossil, "it's not a useful thing to say" explains that nicely. Part attributes like "permineralized" or "before some date" (could) exist if anyone wants to say the things that 'fossil' is usually suggested to encompass. I like!

two ways

If only!

https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecimen_part_name#fossil
https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecimen_part_name#trace_fossil
https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecimen_part_name#amber
https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecimen_part_name#cast
https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctspecimen_part_name#coprolite

Preservation-Data:

temp_fossil.csv.zip

Summary:

 guid_prefix | count 
-------------+-------
 OWU:ES      |    68
 UNM:Paleo   |  1487
 KSB:Teach   |     1
 UAM:ES      |    50
 NMMNH:Paleo |  4872
 ALMNH:Paleo |   213
 CRCM:Mamm   |     4
 JSNM:Paleo  |   178
 CRCM:Paleo  |   116
 DMNS:Inv    |    82
 UTEP:ES     |    11
 UTEP:Inv    |   746
 CHAS:Inv    |     1

Ping:

@mvzhuang
@acdoll
@sharpphyl
@aklompma
@droberts49
@Jegelewicz
@wellerjes
@jrpletch
@Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS
@cefilipek
@genevieve-anderegg
@jessicatir

Part-Type Data:

temp_part_fossil.csv.zip

Summary:

 guid_prefix | count 
-------------+-------
 UTEP:Ento   |     1
 MSB:Fish    |    72
 CHAS:Teach  |   104
 UTEP:HerpOS |     1
 MVZ:Mamm    |    66
 UCM:Herp    |    20
 UNM:Paleo   |    66
 TCDGM:Paleo |   328
 ALMNH:Paleo |  2226
 UCM:Fish    |     3
 JSNM:Paleo  |  1244
 UTEP:ES     |     2
 UCM:Mamm    |    16
 UTEP:Mamm   |     1
 MVZ:Herp    |     1
 MVZ:Bird    |     3
 OWU:ES      |    10
 NMMNH:Paleo |  6624
 UAM:ES      |  1496
 DMNS:Mamm   |     1
 PSM:Paleo   |  3911
 UMZM:Mamm   |     1

Ping

@jrdemboski
@campmlc
@adhornsby
@ccicero
@mkoo
@cjconroy
@atrox10
@mvzhuang
@acdoll
@aklompma
@ebraker
@droberts49
@Jegelewicz
@wellerjes
@jrpletch
@Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS
@cefilipek
@ufarrell

[KatherineLAnderson]

Thanks for starting this thread, @Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS !

I feel as though this is redundant (although I'd be curious to know Dusty's pedantic distinction!)... if someone wants to add more information about how the object is fossilized (e.g., natural cast), they could use the preservation part attribute. But generally speaking, unless otherwise stated via part attributes or the catalogued item type, I'd assume an object in a paleo collection is a "fossil" (however you want to define that). This is why I first wondered if including that part attribute was necessary at all, or just stating the obvious--but if searching multiple collections or one collection with both recent and fossil specimens, it felt useful to be explicit. But then, as Nicole pointed out, that's recorded elsewhere in the catalogued item type.

I reached out to Nicole asking about this as I'm getting ready to bulkload parts, and I have added preservation=fossil to my working spreadsheets, but it'd be great to get some resolution on this before I pull the trigger.

[dustymc]

pedantic distinction

Parts are probably-ephemeral THINGS: you can touch them, but you can also lose them, saw them in half to make two new parts while destroying the old, give them away, use them up, yada yada.

Cataloged items are forever (we hope/wish) CONCEPTS. The 'type' is a sort of summary (I think - it's also just something that GBIF forces us to use...) which probably comes from parts, but not in such a way that it can be calculated from the part data. It'll probably also persist after the part is gone - "this record represents a fossil, but you can't directly check that because we used up the material."

preservation part attribute

It's bison meat, it's preserved by freezing. (And its 36KY old, which some people think makes it a fossil - so not just preservation, but yea/mostly.)

added preservation=fossil

I can't imagine the term surviving this issue, but I fail at imaginging lots of things and can help clean up when/if we get there....

[KatherineLAnderson]

I can't imagine the term surviving this issue

Should I continue with including it in my parts bulkloads for now?

[Jegelewicz]

Should I continue with including it in my parts bulkloads for now?

I'd say yes. When this is resolved, we will migrate data (or remove) as needed).

[adhornsby]

The UMZM record is a cast of a skull -- I updated the part so it wouldn't get mixed up with any fossil updates.

[Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS]

Someone always shows up and moves the goalpost around when there's a serious question about what is and is not a fossil, "it's not a useful thing to say" explains that nicely

It is, but I think mostly in the sense of "hey, this shouldn't be a part of modern organism ranges" and "hey, pay attention to the geology/time component". Which makes

The 'type' is a sort of summary

more useful than part-level distinctions.

[Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS]

I've updated this to a code table request, see #7736 (comment)