Project

General

Profile

Bug #2656

County lists should include ambiguous records

Added by Robert Peet about 12 years ago. Updated over 11 years ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
Category:
atlas
Target version:
Start date:
11/09/2006
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Bugzilla-Id:
2656

Description

Currently ambiguous occurrences are not so annotated in the county lists. Also, ambiguous taxa are not handled properly in the list generation. For example, if you generate a list of taxa for Orange County, you get Acer rubrum, but not Acer drummondii. However, if you generate maps of these two taxa, both are present in Orange County only as ambiguous occurrences. The list should provide a result consistent with that of the maps.

History

#1 Updated by xianhua liu about 12 years ago

It is realy hard to do concept-based search by county. First step is to search all names recorded in all data sources in the county. Second step is to map all these names to Alan Weakley's concepts based on the standards the hosted data sources follow and the relationships of concepts in these standards to that of Alan Weakley's standard. If there is a relationship, even it is ambiguous, we can show the related Alan Weakley concept in the list. But what if there is no related Alan Weakley concept? Maybe we only show those that somehow related to Alan Weakley's concepts?

#2 Updated by Robert Peet about 12 years ago

Ambiguous county occurrences will need to be flagged as such.

Concepts not mapped to Weakley concepts should have their concept authors listed.

#3 Updated by Robert Peet almost 12 years ago

My main concern is that this is such a complex query that performance will be terrible. I am willing to drop this bug if XIanhua considered the generated query too complex to achieve acceptable performance.

#4 Updated by Robert Peet over 11 years ago

Rethink we funding available

#5 Updated by Redmine Admin over 5 years ago

Original Bugzilla ID was 2656

Also available in: Atom PDF