Code Table Request - new attribute: antler points left

[Jegelewicz]

Instructions

This is a template to facilitate communication with the Arctos Code Table Committee. Submit a separate request for each relevant value. This form is appropriate for exploring how data may best be stored, for adding vocabulary, or for updating existing definitions.

Reviewing documentation before proceeding will result in a more enjoyable experience.

• Issue Documentation
• Code Table Documentation
• Video Tutorial - Submit a Code Table Request

---

Initial Request

Goal: Describe what you're trying to accomplish. This is the only necessary step to start this process. The Committee is available to assist with all other steps. Please clearly indicate any uncertainty or desired guidance if you proceed beyond this step.

NCWRC maintains data on deer and needs this value to be able to report expected information to those interested in deer populations. See also https://github.com/ArctosDB/data-migration/issues/889#issuecomment-1516850746 and related comments in that issue.

Proposed Value: Proposed new value. This should be clear and compatible with similar values in the relevant table and across Arctos.

antler points left

Proposed Definition: Clear, complete, non-collection-type-specific functional definition of the value. Avoid discipline-specific terminology if possible, include parenthetically if unavoidable.

Number of points on the left antler that are at least 1” in length, including the tip of the beam.

Units

https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctcount_units

Context: Describe why this new value is necessary and existing values are not.

There currently are no antler measurement attributes.

Table: Code Tables are http://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm. Link to the specific table or value. This may involve multiple tables and will control datatype for Attributes. OtherID requests require BaseURL (and example) or explanation. Please ask for assistance if unsure.

https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctattribute_type

Collection type: Some code tables contain collection-type-specific values. collection_cde may be found from https://arctos.database.museum/home.cfm

Mamm
Teach

Priority: Please describe the urgency and/or choose a priority-label to the right. You should expect a response within two working days, and may utilize Arctos Contacts if you feel response is lacking.

Available for Public View: Most data are by default publicly available. Describe any necessary access restrictions.

yes

Project: Add the issue to the Code Table Management Project.

Discussion: Please reach out to anyone who might be affected by this change. Leave a comment or add this to the Committee agenda if you believe more focused conversation is necessary.

@ArctosDB/arctos-code-table-administrators

Approval

All of the following must be checked before this may proceed.

The How-To Document should be followed. Pay particular attention to terminology (with emphasis on consistency) and documentation (with emphasis on functionality).

• Code Table Administrator[1] - check and initial, comment, or thumbs-up to indicate that the request complies with the how-to documentation and has your approval
• Code Table Administrator[2] - check and initial, comment, or thumbs-up to indicate that the request complies with the how-to documentation and has your approval
• DBA - The request is functionally acceptable. The term is not a functional duplicate, and is compatible with existing data and code.
• DBA - Appropriate code or handlers are in place as necessary. (ID_References, Media Relationships, Encumbrances, etc. require particular attention)

Rejection

If you believe this request should not proceed, explain why here. Suggest any changes that would make the change acceptable, alternate (usually existing) paths to the same goals, etc.

1. Can a suitable solution be found here? If not, proceed to (2)
2. Can a suitable solution be found by Code Table Committee discussion? If not, proceed to (3)
3. Take the discussion to a monthly Arctos Working Group meeting for final resolution.

Implementation

Once all of the Approval Checklist is appropriately checked and there are no Rejection comments, or in special circumstances by decree of the Arctos Working Group, the change may be made.

Review everything one last time. Ensure the How-To has been followed. Ensure all checks have been made by appropriate personnel.

Make changes as described above. Ensure the URL of this Issue is included in the definition.

Close this Issue.

DO NOT modify Arctos Authorities in any way before all points in this Issue have been fully addressed; data loss may result.

Special Exemptions

In very specific cases and by prior approval of The Committee, the approval process may be skipped, and implementation requirements may be slightly altered. Please note here if you are proceeding under one of these use cases.

1. Adding an existing term to additional collection types may proceed immediately and without discussion, but doing so may also subject users to future cleanup efforts. If time allows, please review the term and definition as part of this step.
2. The Committee may grant special access on particular tables to particular users. This should be exercised with great caution only after several smooth test cases, and generally limited to "taxonomy-like" data such as International Commission on Stratigraphy terminology.

[dustymc]

Bare numbers are not compatible with the model, units are required for numeric attributes. https://arctos.database.museum/info/ctDocumentation.cfm?table=ctcount_units is probably the correct source, and these related requests probably need to start with new value there.

[Jegelewicz]

related requests probably need to start with new value there.

I just edited the code table request template to add these back in. Sorry about missing the units on these guys - will fix.

[campmlc]

That units code table is very odd - "individuals, ng/ml, percent" ?
The units for this proposed attribute would be none of the above, so perhaps "count" would be the value?
Or am I not seeing something?

[dustymc]

code table is very odd - "individuals, ng/ml, percent" ?

Agree, the issue leading to ng/uL was improperly implemented and we're still cleaning that up, it's now slightly cleaner than it used to be.

Relative humidity is using percent, that should be addressed (or documented, maybe that's correct?) before the crazy spreads but I don't have time to tackle it now.

[Jegelewicz]

I would use individuals as in individual points but the definition may need an update?

[campmlc]

That doesn't make sense. Individuals isn't used by most people in that context, especially by museum people. I've seen "count" used in this context by other databases?

…

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 1:55 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < ***@***.***> wrote: * [EXTERNAL]* I would use individuals as in individual points but the definition may need an update? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6173 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBH2S4ETCUJRDQINOYTXCLQZPANCNFSM6AAAAAAXHCK6OQ> . You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[dustymc]

make sense

"7 individual antler points" sounds right to me.

[campmlc]

individual (adjective) is not the same as individuals (noun)- how is this showing up in the interface?

[campmlc]

Don't we have a separate code table for things that are just counts? This would apply.

[campmlc]

That will also be relevant for counts of placental scars, counts of embryos etc for RANGES grant

[ccicero]

See comment #6175

[Jegelewicz]

Closing as consolidated with #6175