Change term - preparations

[deepreef]

Change term

• Submitter: Richard Pyle
• Proponents (who needs this change): Everyone
• Justification (why is this change necessary?): As currently defined, this property applies to preservation methods for a specimen, and specimens are included as examples within the definition of the MaterialSample class.

Current Term definition: https://dwc.tdwg.org/list/#dwc_preparations

Proposed new attributes of the term:

• Term name (in lowerCamelCase): preparations
• Organized in Class (e.g. Location, Taxon): MaterialSample
• Definition of the term: A list (concatenated and separated) of preparations and preservation methods for a specimen.
• Usage comments (recommendations regarding content, etc.): Recommended best practice is to separate the values in a list with space vertical bar space (|).
• Examples: fossil, cast, photograph, DNA extract, skin | skull | skeleton, whole animal (ETOH) | tissue (EDTA)
• Refines (identifier of the broader term this term refines, if applicable): None
• Replaces (identifier of the existing term that would be deprecated and replaced by this term, if applicable): http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/version/preparations-2017-10-06
• ABCD 2.06 (XPATH of the equivalent term in ABCD or EFG, if applicable): DataSets/DataSet/Units/Unit/SpecimenUnit/Preparations/PreparationsText

The only pproposed change is to organize this term within the MaterialSample class, rather than the Occurrence class. No other changes to the term are proposed. Discussion around changes to MaterialSample on DwC (#314).

[tucotuco]

Related issues are Issue #1, Issue #3, Issue #24 (reopened because of renewed interest), Issue #314, Issue #332, Issue #344, Issue #345, and Issue #347.

[wouteraddink]

The term definition is fuzzy, as well as the examples. Might be better replaced by two terms, "mount" and "preservedPart", which are two different things. preservedPart examples: body, bone, antler, fruit. mount examples: cast, envelope, jar, microscopic slide

[tucotuco]

@wouteraddink The review of preparations and MaterialSamples in a Task Group could sort out the concerns you raise here. The current proposal is only to change the class the term is organized in, which is a non-normative change. I think the change in organization is warranted and has a history going back to Issue #24. I think it would be good to implement this change regardless of the further issues you raise, for which I would recommend creating one or more separate issues.

[wouteraddink]

That is ok for me, but it would be only a minor improvement, since the term itself needs work. See here for an example of what content it currently leads to in GBIF: https://github.com/tdwg/mids/files/5842404/bq-results-20210120-122837-ydhq0a99j5dl.xlsx

[tucotuco]

Yes, it needs a lot of work to be anything more than a convenience term, hence the recommendation in #345 (comment) to follow up on the work presented by @acbentley Andy Bentley. See also #1 (comment).

[deepreef]

Apologies to all creating this as a new issue. As @tucotuco noted, the only proposal was to move the term from the Occurrence class to the MaterialSample class (everything else above is identical to the existing definition); but as this is a non-normative change, and as this issue was already addressed in a previous issue (from 2014!!), it was a mistake to create this issue.

Perhaps now that #24 has been re-opened, this issue should be closed and commentary should be concentrated over at #24.

[tucotuco]

Perhaps now that #24 <#24> has been re-opened, this issue should be closed and commentary should be concentrated over at #24 <#24>.

This issue should not be closed, it is necessary as a templated change request, which Issue #24 lacks. Issue #24 is a discussion supporting this change request.

…

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 5:16 PM Richard L. Pyle ***@***.***> wrote: Apologies to all creating this as a new issue. As @tucotuco <https://github.com/tucotuco> noted, the *only* proposal was to move the term from the Occurrence class to the MaterialSample class (everything else above is identical to the existing definition); but as this is a non-normative change, and as this issue was already addressed in a previous issue (from 2014!!) Perhaps now that #24 <#24> has been re-opened, this issue should be closed and commentary should be concentrated over at #24 <#24>. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#346 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ722GO7GWCSMBICVQQJDTLG5DJANCNFSM43WNSEZA> .

[deepreef]

OK, thanks for the clarification, @tucotuco !

[EstebanMH-SiB]

We endorse this proposal on behalf of @SiBColombia

[tucotuco]

This proposal has been labeled as 'Controversial' and in need of a task group to for resolution. It is no longer part of an active public review.

[tucotuco]

This issue has been superseded by #452