-
|
Description: I’ve been thinking about data entry workflows for IZ, and one thing I want clarification about is whether we should ever be using the Cultural tab. There are currently 38,601 Invertebrate Zoology site records that have data in the Cultural tab. Three different fields are used: Site Type (CulSiteType_tab), Cultural Region (CulCulturalRegion), and Nearest Named Place (CulNearestNamedPlace). Is there a good reason for this? None of these fields, as used on IZ records, seem to capture any information that can’t be covered by other fields. Site Type only has the values “Aquatic” or “Terrestrial”, identical to Record Classification. The only Cultural Region values we’ve used are “Pacific” and a single use of “Asia”. It seems like it would be tidier if we didn’t have to worry about that tab at all. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
Response: Any relationship to Cultural Sites. If only IZ records associated with the site then you can change the Record classification otherwise, Anthro data needs to remain as it is. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Response: Any relationship to Cultural Sites. If only IZ records associated with the site then you can change the Record classification otherwise, Anthro data needs to remain as it is.
See: DECISION on Oceania/Pacific classification