Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

change help text at top of Agent Search page #3813

Closed
mkoo opened this issue Aug 5, 2021 · 18 comments
Closed

change help text at top of Agent Search page #3813

mkoo opened this issue Aug 5, 2021 · 18 comments
Labels
Display/Interface I don't like the way Arctos looks or it isn't working for me aesthetically. Function-Agents
Milestone
Needs Discussion

Comments

@mkoo
Copy link
Member

mkoo commented Aug 5, 2021

The current text is a wee bit confusing and does not include all the agent types we are now tracking. We suggest to replace the text with the following:

Agents in Arctos are either people, entities, organizations or organisms tracked in the database.
@mkoo mkoo added Function-Agents Display/Interface I don't like the way Arctos looks or it isn't working for me aesthetically. labels Aug 5, 2021
@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

Well - I am not sure we have actually agreed to use this for entities or organisms......

@mkoo
Copy link
Member Author

mkoo commented Aug 5, 2021

We're looking at Kianga again and after today's meeting, I am coming around to this idea of a dashboard for agents.... and especially if we add in collections as agents!

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

BUT - I don't think we want a bunch of "organisms" mixed in? Or maybe we do. Eventually we could have "pocket mouse #1" as an agent.....

The functionality is perfect, but I think we might consider keeping people and organizations separate from other organisms. If everyon is OK with them being together, then we at least need some new agent types....

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Aug 5, 2021

don't think we want a bunch of "organisms" mixed in?

Absolutely not, at least without discussion and new agent types, and the existing non-human Agents should be removed.

FWIW the things that have been asked for in Entities are the things that cataloged items have always done; I think we rushed Entity creation (and it's not been much used, but perhaps we'd have not known without doing something), and that we should remove the "entity node" and transfer any useful functionality to #1966 (comment), both as a matter of "corectness" and of sustainability.

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

things that have been asked for in Entities are the things that cataloged items have always done

I am not sure I agree with this assessment - clearly, the things we are seeking in an entity are the things that agents do....

@mkoo
Copy link
Member Author

mkoo commented Aug 5, 2021 via email •
edited
Loading

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Aug 5, 2021

They don't have bulk tools, catalog records do.

#1966 (comment)

They don't have identifications, certainly not those backed by taxa, catalog record do.

They don't have more than "this is me" 'other id' functionality; catalog records do.

They cannot hold attributes; catalog records can.

#1966 (comment)

They don't have mature tools supported by a broad user group: #3765

More stuff that existing bulk tools handle: #3685

I'm sure there's more, but I'm having a lot of difficulty nailing down anything in any of the discussions that can happen within Arctos and is not handled by catalog records.

Anything we do to make relationships between or bulk tools for catalog records more functional works for many use cases. (Anything we do with Entities will work for only limited use cases.)

If there's a disadvantage it's that catalog records of type {something new and appropriate} might look like an independent Occurrence, but if we're cataloging critter-at-place-and-time we're already doing that (and relying on users to recognize it) - again, any work towards making that more clear will have broad impacts.

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Aug 5, 2021

review the other_agents

Many can be deleted - #882 has been hanging around way too long, it needs implemented and documentation needs updated.

Most seem to be miscategorized people, organizations, and groups - https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctagent_type

 create table temp_other_agent as select preferred_agent_name from agent where agent_type='other agent' order by preferred_agent_name;

temp_other_agent.csv.zip

@mkoo
Copy link
Member Author

mkoo commented Aug 5, 2021

i think you're overthinking this. You're right all those things are cat_items and no issues there. beyond the normal relating of specific records to each other how can people find an individual and all their Arctos records?
https://arctos.database.museum/info/agentActivity.cfm?agent_id=21332262

Here's an example of all this chimpanzee's samples, its wikidata page, all id's in one manageable, query-able, understandable page.

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Aug 5, 2021

If that's all you want, then there should be (have been) a discussion about agent type - this is clearly a different THING, and Arctos users have complained about finding this there.

If you want to do things that Agents can't do, then it's the wrong data object (and I can't understand the requests to do those things).

@mkoo
Copy link
Member Author

mkoo commented Aug 5, 2021 via email

@mkoo
Copy link
Member Author

mkoo commented Aug 5, 2021 via email

@mkoo mkoo mentioned this issue Aug 5, 2021
Closed
@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

I like the idea of adding a new agent type and suggest:

organism - any non human organic, living system that functions as an individual entity. Wikipedia. Humans should be assigned and agent type of person, group or organization.

Honestly - I have never even looked at other-agents and a bunch of them should be organizations and yes, a bunch really are projects and not agents unless they can be changed to groups and all the person agents who were on the expedition are added. (Even then they probably should have associated projects).

Can we get a list of them so we can put them in a sheet and make bulk decisions about what to do with them?

@mkoo
Copy link
Member Author

mkoo commented Aug 6, 2021

#3815

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

George the pocket mouse if it's an experimental animal with lots of separately cataloged biopsies (just not the organism pocket mouse).

I will also push back on this. An agent could be super useful for unnamed and non-experimental animals that have parts at MSB and other parts at UAM.

But now as the project discussion proceeds, I wonder if a project might not be a better place for this....Let's see.

@dustymc dustymc added this to the Needs Discussion milestone Aug 11, 2021
@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

No to the projects as stuff for any given organism might come in with lots of other junk in any given accession (no way to associate "contributed by" easily and only get stuff for one organism.

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

The only issue with the agent model is filling up the agent table with a bunch of Mexican Wolves and eventually unnamed mice and trees. But I think we can work it out with a new agent type ("entity" or "organism") and use the UI to separate them when searching (a search page for all "person" agents and a search page for organisms which are effectively the same page, but you get on or the other depending upon which menu item you pick). The other rub will be, in order to keep this stuff normalized, we will need to get rid of the other id "organism ID" and any time you have a part of something that is also at Smithsonian, we will need an "organism" agent in Arctos to create that "organism ID" kind of linkage when the data goes out to aggregators (the beauty of that is that Smithsonian could put our agent url in their "organism id" and BOOM GBIF knows they are the same organism!). Which means we will need a new "collector" (that really needs renaming) role. Something like entity. And the agent url is what would get passed via DarwinCore as OrganismID.

In a way, this will make us an identifier for organisms which is crazy, but until there is an "organism registry" somewhere, I don't see how we can do any better.

@lin-fred
Copy link
Contributor

Discussed during Agent Committee meeting. Although there are currently organisms in agents, with the many discussions about this topic in AWG and the Agent Committee, a solution will come about in which organisms will not be in the agent page. Agents/organizations should be separate from organisms/specimens, and updating the description will not create clarity, but instead confusion.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Display/Interface I don't like the way Arctos looks or it isn't working for me aesthetically. Function-Agents
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Needs Discussion
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@mkoo @dustymc @Jegelewicz @lin-fred