Issue 10145
Remove links to reconciled checklist. It appears in the section "Appears in"
10145
Reporter: omeyn
Assignee: ahahn
Type: SubTask
Summary: Remove links to reconciled checklist. It appears in the section "Appears in"
Description: "Appears in" here: http://portal-static.gbif.org/species/detail.html
Priority: Major
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Closed
Created: 2011-11-07 16:42:46.92
Updated: 2013-08-29 14:46:10.801
Resolved: 2011-11-18 11:30:32.559
Author: omeyn@gbif.org
Created: 2011-11-07 16:43:52.937
Updated: 2011-11-07 16:44:59.905
Kyle Braak Fri, 23 Sep at 2:58am
It's not known what a reconciled checklist is.
Andrea Hahn Mon, 26 Sep at 8:27am
Suggest to replace the two terms currently given by more meaningful categories: nomenclatural, taxonomic, inventories
Markus Döring Tue, 27 Sep at 6:12am
these 3 are the ones we have right now in clb plus "other", but ultimatively we need to maintain these types ourselves manually be tagging resources in the registry. This was supposed to be the resource subtype in EML/IPT if you remember the discussion: http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/resource_type.xml
Andrea Hahn Wed, 28 Sep at 3:08am
The "appears on" section in the taxonomic classification block would only list those that are available with data for the species (taxon) in focus of the page. As such, the length of the list will be variable from species page to species page, the current values are placeholders and can be extended as others become available.
@Markus, does the term of "reconciled checklist" make sense, or should it go?
Markus Döring Wed, 28 Sep at 11:19am
Im not aware of the use of reconciled checklist. It should be values from the above resource type list. Or Dave & Eamonn refining that list if sth is missing, as it will be a manual curation by us in the registry as things currently stand. As far as I know EML doesn't provide us with the subtype - or does it now, Kyle?
Kyle Braak Thu, 29 Sep at 2:21am
In the absence of a vocabulary for subtypes, the subtype list is a static list in the IPT, and in the future it could be injected into the Thesaurus/Keyword set of the EML. That's how it stands now...
Markus Döring Thu, 29 Sep at 3:45am
Hm, but the resource type vocabulary does contain subtypes: http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/resource_type.xml
Anyway, it will be up to us manually to curate those in the registry or derive it from EML if available somehow. Right now the CLB API has an enumeration for it, we have the vocabulary above and ultimately its a plain tag in the registry. Id say we will use the enumeration, map the tags to it or to Other if they don't match and have David responsible for changing the enumeration if that is needed. Sounds ok?
Markus Döring Thu, 29 Sep at 9:49am
Im reading Davids Checklist Best Practice Document from the ORC.
There he lists 6 terms for the checklist scope (which we call here type). It sounds best to me to use these as our enumeration plus Other.
The terms “species checklist” and taxonomic “catalogue” may refer to an overlapping range of taxonomic resources. All of these products contain sets of scientific names that implicitly or explicitly refer to taxa. The set of names included in such a list may be constrained by taxonomic group, geographic region, or by a theme, such as invasive species, or some combination of all three. In order of increasing detail these include the following resource types [These categories and descriptions are derived directly from “Hyam . R., Standardisation of Data Exchange in the Pan-European Species-directories Infrastructure (PESI) Deliverable D 4.1”April 2011]
Name lists – Simple lists of species names with no explicit indication of taxonomic status, but generally implied to consist of accepted names of taxa. Such lists are generally intended to identify a set of taxa included within some regional or thematic context.
Nomenclatural lists (Nomenclators) – Lists of names including the nominal taxa, meaning the registry of published usages of scientific names representing nomenclatural acts as governed by the respective Codes of Nomenclature. Most of these acts are ‘original descriptions’ of new scientific names, but other acts may include emendations, lectotypifications, and other acts as governed by the Codes. Synonymy is not included in these lists as taxonomic concept, but only as newly established combination (for botanists) linked to a basionym, thus providing a nomenclatural synonym.
Taxonomic checklist – These lists extend nomenclatural lists by adding taxonomic opinion in the form of explicit taxonomic status information and the inclusion of names placed in synonymy. Simple taxonomic lists in this category provide no specific circumscription details regarding the basis for the synonymy. Taxa are often organised into classifications. The term “taxonomic catalogue” may also be used to refer to instances of this, and the remaining categories, particularly if the resource includes verified publication and taxonomic status details.
Annotated Checklists - This category extends taxonomic checklists by adding other data types (annotations) to the core, synonymised checklist, such as common names, threat status, distribution and basic descriptive information. When the annotation types provide sufficient detail to effectively define, or circumscribe, a taxon, such as detailed diagnostic descriptions and illustrations, molecular data, specimens, etc., then the annotated list may fall into one of the two categories defined below.
Flora or Faunal lists – These are typically books that provide detailed species accounts for a particular region. Details may include many of the data types included in annotated checklists but include specific data types, such as detailed descriptions and illustrations, specimen references and other details that explicitly define (circumscribe) the taxon within the scope of the region which is not necessarily global.
Monographs – Monographs are detailed species accounts often published as books for a particular taxon group at the global scale. It will contain detailed nomenclature and synonymy and taxon circumscription details, that include textual descriptions and illustrations, details of specimens examined and included in the definition, and a bibliography of examined literature.