Correction of fish abundance parameters with inappropriate methodology #86
Assignees
Labels
Comments
|
Hi Gwen,
That example code was actually set up for boxcore data where the odd small fish turned up in the sediment sample as well as invertebrates. Just be careful with your proposed action that you don't end up replacing 'Abundance per unit area of the bed' codes with 'Abundance per unit volume of the water body' codes.
Cheers, Roy.
I have now retired but will continue to be active through an Emeritus Fellowship using this e-mail address.
…________________________________
From: Gwen Moncoiffé ***@***.***>
Sent: 11 August 2021 10:34
To: nvs-vocabs/P01 ***@***.***>
Cc: Subscribed ***@***.***>
Subject: [nvs-vocabs/P01] Correction of fish abundance parameters with inappropriate methodology (#86)
Caution: This email has originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and content is safe. Thank you.
Some P01 codes for fish abundance records have been created with an inappropriate methodology (see e.g. http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P01/current/ZBN01459/). As well as incongruity, this has also resulted in duplicate records, some with a methodology and some without. It is likely that these terms were added as part of a bulk request that had a mix of zooplankton and fish counts. Because the methodology here is not essential in understanding what the measurement is (information about the sampling gear would be more valuable in this case than the analytical tool), I am proposing to review the P01 parameters mapped to P02=' FATX' (Fish abundance in water bodies) and :
1. deprecate the duplicate records that have methodology specified and link them to the non-method specific records; and
2. set the methodology to "not specified" for all other P01 records in this group if the biological entity is just a species name (i.e. all other biological attributes are set to "not specified").
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#86>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIUW4YXRHE45DGSBQT6GPKDT4I74FANCNFSM5B6ALCPQ>.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email>.
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the named recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or any of its attachments and should notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system.
The National Oceanography Centre (NOC) has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise risk of this email or any attachments containing viruses or malware but the recipient should carry out its own virus and malware checks before opening the attachments. NOC does not accept any liability for any losses or damages which the recipient may sustain due to presence of any viruses.
Opinions, conclusions or other information in this message and attachments that are not related directly to NOC business are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of NOC.
|
|
Just seen from your table here that you're aware of the problem! |
|
Hi Roy @roy-lowry yes I added more info in relation to that. I have created this ticket so that it is logged as something to look at/be aware of. I won't rush into changing anything just yet. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Some P01 codes for fish abundance records have been created with an incongruous methodology (see e.g. http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P01/current/ZBN01459/). This seems to have also resulted in duplicate records, some with a methodology and some without. It is likely that these terms were added as part of bulk requests that had a mix of zooplankton or zoobenthos and fish counts. Because the methodology as stated here is not particularly helpful in understanding what the measurement is (information about the sampling gear is more valuable in this case than the analytical method and this would be expected to be included in the metadata record), I am proposing to review the P01 parameters mapped to P02=' FATX' (Fish abundance in water bodies), and :
Note that codes associated with SAMP_PREP (S03) term='sieving and picking under an optical microscope' are abundance per unit area of the bed, while codes for associated with ANALYSIS (S04) term='optical microscopy' are abundance per unit volume of the water body.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: