Code Table Request - new part name: periotic

[KatherineLAnderson]

Initial Request

Goal

Add periotic to the part name code table

Context

It does not exist in the code table, although it is referenced in the definition of prootic.

Table

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

Proposed Value

periotic

Proposed Definition

The bone that surrounds the inner ear of birds and mammals, formed from the fusion of the prootic, epiotic, and opisthotic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periotic_bone

Collection type

paleo, bio

Attribute Extras

Attribute data type

n/a

Attribute controlled values

n/a

Attribute units

n/a

Part preservation attribute affect on "tissueness"

n/a

Priority

high -- needed for data migration

Example Data

Available for Public View

yes

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 - Code Table Request - new part name: periotic #7823 (comment)
• 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]

@KatherineLAnderson how many of these do you have?

[KatherineLAnderson]

@KatherineLAnderson how many of these do you have?

At least 35, but does it matter? See the discussion here about consistency: #7667

[Jegelewicz]

but does it matter?

Sorry - I am overwhelmed and just trying cover bases. Ignore me.

[Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS]

I support this.

[campmlc]

I'll support if you need another approval.

[mkoo]

There's seems to be no db infrastructure work needed since this is only added a new term to an existing CT; it has approval so let's make it so @Jegelewicz

[dustymc]

See #7737, would very much like big-picture guidance.

[Jegelewicz]

added