Mike has proposed:
1) at least one plant Status must be supplied for each plant Concept.
2) at least one plant Usage must be supplied for each plant Status.
I suggest the following revisions and additions
1) We should wire the system so that the default for the status is accepted by
the party creating the concept.
2) We should wire the system to have a default usage of the name used to
create the concept, and call this the scieintific name with authority system
This means that the required usage must be for the Scientific Name with
authority system, or we need to devise a hierarchy for reporting names when
the requested system is not populated. Seems like we will need a hierarchy for
reporting names when the usage is not provided for a requested system. For
example, if you ask for Sci name and it is missing, then you should get the
sci name with authors. I suggest the following hierarchies as business rules:
Scientific name w/authority (requested)
Scientific name w/o
English common name
Code
Scientific name w/o (requested)
Scientific name w/authority
English common name
Code
English common name (requested)
Scientific name w/o
Scientific name w/authority
Code
Code (requested)
Scientific name w/o
Scientific name w/authority
English common name
Do we need additional business rules?
I am having trouble thinking of any today. Here is the only one that comes to
mind, and it will require adding a field to the names table indicating that
the name is consistent with the IPNI list. What I would like is for all new
names added to be checked against the IPNI list by VegBank. This will require
that we either populate our names table with the perhaps one million names in
IPNI, or we store then as a separate table for validation purposes, or that we
use some as yet probably nonexistent web service from IPNI. I have just sent
an email to IPNI asking about these things, with copies to Mike, Gabe & Don.