-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Search by Identification is Linnean centric #3262
Comments
Cultural collections searchers are instructed to enter the term for which they are searching in the Identification box, while selecting "contains" from the Match type dropdown... we ignore everything else. All those terms like "family" "tribe" and "subtribe" cause confusion for Indigenous collections so we ask folks to not even look down there. To truly accommodate cultural collections we'd need an entirely different taxonomic structure for searching (akin to AAF or Nomenclature). |
Bumping up on issue list. We talked about a simple way to accommodate cultural/heritage users that will not require a separate search page. @dustymc can add a second search box that can accommodate cultural searches. So instead of 'Scientific Name' it can use 'Cultural Term' -- or is there something better / preferred? Perhaps 'contains' can be built into the search box so it's even simpler to use. It will be on the default search page next to the Scientific Name search box. |
Maybe "object term" or "object name" ?
That would be awesome! |
I like "object type" since it's the standard term used by the CDWA and I think would work across cultural/art collections. |
I like 'Object Type' too |
Object Type sounds great. I think that is very clear that it is a type of
object and not the title of an artwork/object.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michelle Koo ***@***.***> wrote:
I like 'Object Type' too
it would work for future Archives collection
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3262 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJKSRR5QP2KGFEKQQVB2TULSTAJBJANCNFSM4UMDFO7Q>
.
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
|
Object type sounds great to me, and I think having a 'contains' parameter
built-in is also a great idea.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:54 PM Mareca Guthrie <notifications@github.com>
wrote:
… Object Type sounds great. I think that is very clear that it is a type of
object and not the title of an artwork/object.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michelle Koo ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I like 'Object Type' too
> it would work for future Archives collection
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
>
>
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#3262 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJKSRR5QP2KGFEKQQVB2TULSTAJBJANCNFSM4UMDFO7Q
>
> .
>
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3262 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGWDEEPP5TMRX254RWSP2OTSTAJJBANCNFSM4UMDFO7Q>
.
--
Scott Shirar
Archaeology Collection Manager
University of Alaska Museum of the North
907-474-6943
|
Add a new box to search cultural items @campmlc suggests adding the choice for name type (but that is associated with the name). @dustymc suggests associating with the classification source. @mkoo suggests a changing list of options depending upon interest. @dusty suggests Term/Term-type/Source but allow multiple sources (@Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS ) this is good for now! Let's test it Also, allow external sources? Dusty will look into it, if it's too hard, stick with the Arctos local sources, if it's easy, go ahead. Let's do something in test to see if everyone is OK with it. |
From Issues meeting in December 2020 - related to #3258:
|
There's some new stuff in test. You can currently search on
and any term-involving combination thereof. It's allowing only local classifications - if we continue with #3311 we'll have to add those to the code table or cache from GN or something, and that could be added to this form. (Or I can do it now, but it does require some cache, pulling live source is slow.) Multiple sources ("according to at least one of these") is allowed. Name type (https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=cttaxon_name_type) is arbitrary and not useful for this; it only tells who created (or first claimed, for legacy) a name, not how it's used. See https://arctos.database.museum/name/Oar#Arctos and https://arctos.database.museum/name/Oar#NomenclatureviaArctos for example |
OOPS! Spoke too soon. Received this error:
|
That's my theory - use the "anything" if you're looking for anything, use this if you're looking for something more specific.
Turn some crap off! It's test, I can't install pg_trgm so indexes are dicey, I can't install pg_cron so flat isn't properly caching. https://github.com/ArctosDB/internal/issues/65 |
Roger - that does it. |
Ok I've been playing with it, but I'm afraid I'm still failing to find that bus in the UAM collection. How would I use the new search terms to better find it? |
because uses https://arctos.database.museum/name/Bus which has |
Same issue here, I was trying to run some test queries but had a hard time figuring out things to test since so little of our data is actually in test. |
Yay? Tentatively closing.... |
The search page offers all of the options for searching Linnean taxonomy, but only "Species" for minerals and nothing for Culture and Art collections.
Sure, you can search "Identification (scientific name)" for anything, but would an art person search there? Also, it just happens that minerals are also called "species" so they share that field with biological stuff, but art and cultrual collections will not share terms in that way. How can we offer them an appropriate search function for "identification"?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: