Project

General

Profile

Actions

feature request #10503

closed

Handle order of name relationships in dataportal

Added by Andreas Müller 2 months ago. Updated about 1 month ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Highest
Assignee:
Category:
cdm-dataportal
Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Severity:
normal
Tags:

Description

KL:

we have noticed that the sorting of the name relations handled as non/nec relations in the data portal is not properly defined. Currently they are ordered by an order index which only can be changed in the database.
We think about order by alphabet and if it is an inverse or direct relation.

What is your opinion about the order?

AM:

just some more explanation on this. Generally we talk about the order in of related names related via “non.. nec… nec…” to a name in the synonymy.
What is meant by order index is that names is such a “non … nec … nec” line are ordered via the relationship type. So later homonyms come before “treated as later homonyms” and these come before blocking names etc. This is how it is now, but from the code and from the ticket system it is not clear if this was originally a user requirement or if it was simply implemented such. And it is also not fully clear how this order was defined.
An alternative could be to order by alphabetic order of the related names. Especially for non..nec…nec this seems to make sense as for the portal user it is anyway not clear what type of relationship is handled here as the type is somehow hidden behind non/nec.

Also we need to decide in what order an additional relation which does not use non/nec but e.g. orth. var. should appear here, in the rare case that this both comes together.

ERS:

if I understand this correctly, it is ok that later homonyms come before blocking names.

The normal case for non… nec… nec , as I know it, is that not only one, but several later homonyms exist. Then, they should be ordered chronologically, not alphabetically – the oldest later homonym first, then the second one, etc.

RL:

I agree with Eckhard: chronological order is standard, because of priority. Normally, a replacement name replaces a later homonym or a blocking name, so in this case, the first listed name is always the one that has been replaced. Therefore, a blocking name would usually come first in the list, and most likely is the only replaced "no" name, and there are no "necs". If a blocking name comes chronologically after a previous (younger) homonym, it technically is not a blocking name anymore, as the previous homonym by default already blocks the name. Personally I do not know of such a case. Homonymy results from oversight, whereas blocking names result from changing genus concepts. But maybe you have such an example somewhere?


Files

clipboard-202405271355-sf1qi.png (37.9 KB) clipboard-202405271355-sf1qi.png Andreas Müller, 05/27/2024 01:55 PM

Related issues

Related to EDIT - task #10322: Use DTOs for portal taxon page (cont.)ResolvedAndreas Müller

Actions
Related to EDIT - bug #6523: Correct display of misspellings in synonymyIn ProgressKatja Luther

Actions
Related to EDIT - task #7890: Display of name relations in the data portal [master ticket]NewAndreas Kohlbecker

Actions
Related to EDIT - task #10508: Remaining issues for DTO based taxon pageNewAndreas Müller

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by Andreas Müller 2 months ago

  • Related to task #10322: Use DTOs for portal taxon page (cont.) added
Actions #2

Updated by Andreas Müller 2 months ago

  • Related to bug #6523: Correct display of misspellings in synonymy added
Actions #3

Updated by Andreas Müller 2 months ago

  • Status changed from New to Resolved
  • Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller
  • % Done changed from 0 to 70
Actions #4

Updated by Andreas Müller 2 months ago

  • Related to task #7890: Display of name relations in the data portal [master ticket] added
Actions #5

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

The ordering seems to be type dependend. The following constructed example shows a name from 1830 prior to a name from 1820:

Is this wanted behavior?

Is there an example on integration for testing? If yes, please link. Also there is code related to this ticket yet.

Actions #6

Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

In old portal the namerelations are sorted by "compare_name_relations_by_term_order_index" (see ticket description).

Actions #7

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

Katja Luther wrote in #note-6:

In old portal the namerelations are sorted by "compare_name_relations_by_term_order_index" (see ticket description).

But this is ón test (sorry for not adding the link, here it is: https://test.e-taxonomy.eu/dataportal/preview/caryophyllales_spp/cdm_dataportal/taxon/dcda3961-c1e1-4cc9-adeb-4e4ecbee31b4/synonymy?highlite=08e9f68d-b802-4fac-88f1-280b6eeb6e8e&acceptedFor=08e9f68d-b802-4fac-88f1-280b6eeb6e8e#08e9f68d-b802-4fac-88f1-280b6eeb6e8e). Shouldn't test use the new order already?

Actions #8

Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

There is a filter mechanism which puts the blocking name in front of the non/nec names.

Actions #9

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

  • % Done changed from 70 to 90

OK, so if this is wanted behavior we can close this ticket.

Can you still add a link to integration and add code changes and close?

Actions #10

Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

On portal side there are no code changes, only the removed sorting, I added the commit.

As test this page is used:
https://int.e-taxonomy.eu/dataportal/integration/reference/cdm_dataportal/taxon/7094ea13-2a95-46d9-bfca-8c0e0848e44c/synonymy

Actions #11

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

Katja Luther wrote in #note-10:

As test this page is used:
https://int.e-taxonomy.eu/dataportal/integration/reference/cdm_dataportal/taxon/7094ea13-2a95-46d9-bfca-8c0e0848e44c/synonymy

As wonder why non...nec...nec... names do not have years mentioned there while the orth. var. has a year. Is this wanted behaviour. Personally, I would expect it the other way round.

Actions #12

Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

Andreas Müller wrote in #note-11:

Katja Luther wrote in #note-10:

As test this page is used:
https://int.e-taxonomy.eu/dataportal/integration/reference/cdm_dataportal/taxon/7094ea13-2a95-46d9-bfca-8c0e0848e44c/synonymy

As wonder why non...nec...nec... names do not have years mentioned there while the orth. var. has a year. Is this wanted behaviour. Personally, I would expect it the other way round.

Because they don't have sources. We should add sources, to check the ordering. -> that's not correct, the year is not shown also if a source is available

Actions #13

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

  • Related to task #10508: Remaining issues for DTO based taxon page added
Actions #14

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

Katja Luther wrote in #note-12:

Andreas Müller wrote in #note-11:

Katja Luther wrote in #note-10:

As test this page is used:
https://int.e-taxonomy.eu/dataportal/integration/reference/cdm_dataportal/taxon/7094ea13-2a95-46d9-bfca-8c0e0848e44c/synonymy

As wonder why non...nec...nec... names do not have years mentioned there while the orth. var. has a year. Is this wanted behaviour. Personally, I would expect it the other way round.

Because they don't have sources. We should add sources, to check the ordering. -> that's not correct, the year is not shown also if a source is available

It's not the source of the relation but the nomencl. source. If this exists the year is shown (and ordered correctly). Only open issue is that ordering takes place only on the year, not on the exact date, as this is not available in the ws yet.

Actions #15

Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Closed
  • % Done changed from 90 to 100

I added the above only open issue to #10508. So we can close this ticket.

Actions #16

Updated by Andreas Müller about 1 month ago

  • Target version changed from Release 5.47 to Release 5.43
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF