Ecoinformatics Redmine: Issueshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/https://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/ecoinfo/favicon.ico?14691340362011-08-30T01:28:18ZEcoinformatics Redmine
Redmine VegBank - Bug #5478 (New): after querying plants, communities, or plots, link back to searchhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/54782011-08-30T01:28:18ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>When searching for something, web sites often want you to be able to modify your search terms easily and search again. We should do that. Now, you have to use the back button.</p>
<p>Seems like we could include part of the search page (fancy option) or at least offer a backlink to it, with the form filled out, ideally.</p> VegBank - Bug #5391 (New): build process into war file does not generate faq.htmlhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53912011-05-04T20:38:40ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>the initial build process that generated the war file did not generate a faq.html file in web/general. This is handled in web/build.xml and needs to be called.</p> InfoVeg - Bug #5388 (New): Migrate CF projects to Archive DBhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53882011-04-29T16:00:04ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>CF projects need to be QC'd and migrated.</p> InfoVeg - Bug #5384 (New): Collections spreadsheets verificationhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53842011-04-29T15:40:29ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>We want to be able to browse for a collection spreadsheet and determine what percentage of the updated specimens are integrated into the Analysis DB.</p> InfoVeg - Bug #5383 (New): Updating GUIDs for taxon observationshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/53832011-04-29T15:38:56ZForbes Boylemboyle@unc.edu
<p>This will allow better annotation and updating of our taxa, says MLee. Will also help upgrade to Weakley 2010.</p> VegBank - Bug #5211 (New): Colorado data not entered correctlyhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/52112010-10-20T13:17:10ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>The taxonomy was not updated as originally requested, there are some problems with the cover values, there are some problems with the metadata, and the community names assigned are strangely rendered.</p>
<p>(from Peet email 10/20/2010)</p> InfoVeg - Bug #5159 (New): auto filter for sensitive specieshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/51592010-08-21T21:36:13ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Today (Sept 3, 2009), Alan and I [Michael] had a productive conversation about how and for<br />which species we should fuzz plot locations. I described our current<br />approach, which rounds plot locations to the nearest 0.01 degree for<br />Lat and Long to approximate a 1km fuzzing, 0.1 degree for 10km fuzzing<br />and 1 degree for 100km fuzzing. Alan asked a great question as to<br />what radius this resulted in. It yields the centroid of a 0.01, 0.1,<br />or 1 degree box, which amounts to a DIAMETER of a little less than the<br />1km, 10km, and 100km.</p>
<p>I ran a quick algorithm for all plots in our database and found that<br />if we say we are fuzzing 100 km (1 degree), the average distance from<br />those points to our plots is 34.7km. If we are trying for 10km (0.1<br />deg), we get 3.7km. If we try to 1km (0.01 deg), we get 380m. We<br />would expect a smaller number than what we are aiming for, but clearly<br />these are a bit low.</p>
<p>So we probably should either round to the nearest 0.02, 0.2, and 2<br />degree boxes, or actually write an algorithm that will pick a point at<br />random within the specified radius. I don't think that should be too<br />hard.</p>
<p>Next, and the key item, Alan said that he didn't think all rare<br />species should be fuzzed. There are plenty that have no economical<br />value, are not of interest to poachers, and are difficult to get to in<br />any case. He said that the key ones to block are Panax, some orchids,<br />some lillies, carniverous species except Utricularia. I'm probably<br />missing some. Also we need to fuzz locations for all bogs plots given<br />the possible existence of bog turtles there, though those don't turn<br />up in our data. I have fuzzed all of Brenda's bog plots in project 73<br />already in the community summary pages. Alan said he could come up<br />with a list of species for us without taking too much effort, as well<br />as an appropriate fuzzing. He expressed a desire to fuzz more than<br />10km but less than 100km, which we might want to consider, as well.</p> VegBank - Bug #4796 (New): receipt of plots with accession codes after loadinghttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/47962010-02-16T16:49:37ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Don says: Would it be possible in the future, that whenever someone uploaded their data into VegBank, they could somehow be sent a table of their own plot codes and the VegBank accession code?</p>
<p>Michael: we could certainly add this to the receipt.</p> VegBank - Bug #4502 (New): standardized online data entry form for plotshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/45022009-10-22T19:17:19ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>This is vastly complex and difficult to assure that data are complete and things like network interruptions don't cause lost data. I think this is a poor use of time and will under the best circumstances result in poor data entry interface.</p>
<p>Source is section 2.6.2 number 9 of requirements document, page 60</p> VegBank - Bug #4494 (New): Tracking and correlating multiple database GUIDs to entitieshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/44942009-10-22T19:16:08ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Some mechanism needed to track GUIDs from other dbs and how they relate to VB entities will eventually be needed. Need mechnism to discover identical plots in distributed databases, ideally, otherwise allow users to copy and paste lists of equivalent GUIDs</p>
<p>Source is section 2.6.10 number 39 of requirements document, page 76</p> VegBank - Bug #4493 (New): terms of use revisionhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/44932009-10-22T19:16:00ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>This is fairly doable. We could easily add a creative commons license to each plot, and allow users to specify such licenses when they upload data. Might include a new observation field to allow plot-by-plot changes of license. This would require a revision of VegBranch. Or, we could include this in the 'ownership/embargoes' of plots and could be edited from default after submission.</p>
<p>Source is section 2.6.2 number 14 of requirements document, page 65</p> VegBank - Bug #4486 (New): large download supporthttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/44862009-10-22T19:06:43ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>An easier approach on our server would be to allow full database download for users wanting more than 3000 plots. Then they can filter the full list with a custom-provided list of plots.</p> VegBank - Bug #4485 (New): Export VEGX formathttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/44852009-10-22T19:06:33ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>goes along with import of this format</p> VegBank - Bug #4484 (New): Import VEGX plot data into VegBankhttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/44842009-10-22T19:06:19ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>Some work on this front has been completed in New Zealand on a database similar to VegBank. Should check with them before proceeding</p> InfoVeg - Bug #4378 (New): Classification Automation Toolshttps://projects.ecoinformatics.org/ecoinfo/issues/43782009-09-10T18:41:54ZMichael Leemlee@nceas.ucsb.edu
<p>1) Assess classification of current plots based on composition<br /> a) distance metrics to centroid as start<br /> b) flag suspect plots (far from centroid) and then allow flag to be marked OK (perhaps with date)</p>
<p>2) For new plots, suggest potential candidate communities</p>
<p>3) ADD primary classification field<br /> a) we aim to have a primary classification for each plot</p>
<p>4) method detail:<br /> a) eliminate all species not to species level<br /> b) dumb down all varieties to species level <br /> c) eliminate composite species and dumb down composite vars<br /> d) provide an analysis of all eliminated species with 10% or more cover (Forbes may adjust rules when considering this)</p>