"curatorial geography"

[dustymc]

In conjunction with #5383, create a new locality attribute 'curatorial geography.'

It can be used for qualifiers ("Alameda County") but also for eg historic names which might not agree with current spatial geography, or just WHATEVER a collection might want to use it for.

@dustymc will revise labels as necessary/on request to use this. (There's a function, should be simple.)

@ccicero plz fix whatever I messed up!

[dustymc]

#5383 is now scheduled to begin the 20th; I'll need instructions if I'm to do anything with this in conjunction.

[Jegelewicz]

This doesn't seem that different from previous geography. Is this needed just for label creation or can we envision other reasons it might be used? If we are making something specifically for label generation, maybe we should say that? Sorry - just thinking that we might need more than one thing, but maybe not - I don't know the whole story.

[dustymc]

@ccicero is that compatible with whatever you're trying to do?

[Jegelewicz]

This all seems like "verbatim geography" as determined by determiner agent on determined date. I propose that we change "previous geography" to "verbatim geography and update the definition to verbatim geography string.

[Jegelewicz]

Adding this to code tables for tomorrow as priority.

[Jegelewicz]

From AWG Meeting Notes

(DLM: we’ve already had this discussion and agreed to follow GADM, don’t think we need to rehash) Can we drop "County" from US geography?

GADM does not have the word “county”.

Would make it easier to talk to GADM that we remove “county” in our higher geography

Data would stay the same, but higher geography would just not have the word

We may need a field that describes what the different areas are called into their native area.

California is a state, British Columbia is a province, etc
Place the term names in perhaps geography features/attributes that allows for it be put in labels

Dusty would like a meeting with the manager of GADM -> we could provide info to help improve

[dustymc]

priority

Not sure how an arbitrary change in terminology is priority?

verbatim

No? I think @ccicero is wanting a formatted string to print labels, not necessarily verbatim anything. (And that might be incompatible with multiple 'determinations'?) I used the existing attribute for stuff that's also not verbatim (except as constructed pre-GADMification). Whatever I use for the next phase (if I use anything @ccicero help!) won't be verbatim either.

Maybe geog search terms can be leveraged for this (but it'll have cardinality issues too - some sort of findable+replaceable flag? "MVZLabels: bla bla..."==>replace(...)=="bla bla..") Example: https://arctos-test.tacc.utexas.edu/place.cfm?action=detail&geog_auth_rec_id=1001626

If this solidifies (maybe before?) it should be recast to https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/new?assignees=&labels=Function-CodeTables&template=code-table-request--proposed-.md&title=Code+Table+Request+-+ - this issue is missing a well-defined goal, I don't think we're going to get anywhere useful without a target in sight.

[Jegelewicz]

priority

#5383 is now scheduled to begin the 20th; I'll need instructions if I'm to do anything with this in conjunction.

[mkoo]

I would favor removing designations in adm_1 and adm_2 but adding in type_1 and type_2 from GADM since 'State', 'Province' etc is already in that field. If it can be displayed or concatenated for users that would be ideal.

[Jegelewicz]

Will be a non-issue after concatenation of GADM fields.