Bug #2656
open
County lists should include ambiguous records
Added by Robert Peet over 17 years ago.
Updated almost 17 years ago.
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.
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?
Ambiguous county occurrences will need to be flagged as such.
Concepts not mapped to Weakley concepts should have their concept authors listed.
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.
Rethink we funding available
Original Bugzilla ID was 2656
Also available in: Atom
PDF