task #5857
closedtask #4177: display of name relationships in synonymy broken
show nomenclatural status for for representations of TaxonName
100%
Description
the related name (name behind "non" does not yet show a status if a status exists). This is probably because it only shows the title cache, not the full title cache. The status is part of the full title cache. Maybe we also need discussion with users, if the status is wanted, before we spend time for implementation
TODO
Discuss with users- show citation, rule considered, and citation detail in footnotes
(split off from #5697)
Files
| picture502-1.png (93 KB) picture502-1.png | |||
| picture292-1.png (12.2 KB) picture292-1.png | |||
| picture890-1.png (19.2 KB) picture890-1.png | |||
| picture437-1.png (36.3 KB) picture437-1.png | |||
| picture437-2.png (25.1 KB) picture437-2.png |
Related issues
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker over 5 years ago
- Related to task #7890: Display of name relations in the data portal [master ticket] added
Updated by Andreas Müller over 5 years ago
- Tags set to euro+med
- Description updated (diff)
also relevant for E+M, need to check how this is handled in BM E+M
Updated by Andreas Müller almost 5 years ago
- Target version changed from Unassigned CDM tickets to Euro+Med Portal Release
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Andreas Kohlbecker
- Priority changed from New to Highest
- Target version changed from Euro+Med Portal Release to Release 5.8
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Tags changed from euro+med to euro+med, phycobank
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Related to feature request #8108: Name page shows complete name information (I) added
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Related to feature request #8314: TaxonName provides the FullTitleCache as TaggedText added
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Subject changed from show status for "non" names? to show nomenclatural status for for representations of TaxonName
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
no need to discuss this with the users. The display of the nom status can be configured via the "Name render templates"
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Related to feature request #8319: NomenclaturalStatus webservice implemented added
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from New to Resolved
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
Applied in changeset cdm-dataportal|a7560a186de2e5673e04f4a1166ad1077eb7c7d5.
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Assignee changed from Andreas Kohlbecker to Wolf-Henning Kusber
this has been solved completely, please review
Updated by Wolf-Henning Kusber almost 5 years ago
- File picture502-1.png picture502-1.png added
- Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
- Assignee changed from Wolf-Henning Kusber to Andreas Kohlbecker
- % Done changed from 50 to 80
Review: The articles are shown, but for users the content migth be confusing.
How to read this?
Navicula adminii D.Roberts & A.McMinn in Biblioth. Diatomol. 44: 27. 1999 is validated by [Art. 8.2, Art. 9.5 Turland, N.J., Wiersema, J.H., Barrie, F.R. & al., International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017Regnum Vegetabile, 159] Navicula adminensis D.Roberts & A.McMinn ex D.Roberts & A.McMinn in Notulae Algarum 65: 1. 12.6.2018 ["12 Jun 2018"]
This would be kompletely wrong.
is validated by1 Navicula adminensis D.Roberts & A.McMinn ex D.Roberts & A.McMinn in Notulae Algarum 65: 1. 12.6.2018
better:
1 is validated by Navicula adminensis D.Roberts & A.McMinn ex D.Roberts & A.McMinn in Notulae Algarum 65: 1. 12.6.2018
or:
Navicula adminii1 is validated by Navicula adminensis D.Roberts & A.McMinn ex D.Roberts & A.McMinn in Notulae Algarum 65: 1. 12.6.2018
Updated by Wolf-Henning Kusber almost 5 years ago
- File picture292-1.png picture292-1.png added
The following output is perfect:
Updated by Wolf-Henning Kusber almost 5 years ago
- File picture890-1.png picture890-1.png added
The following output is fine:
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Assignee changed from Andreas Kohlbecker to Wolf-Henning Kusber
so can we close this issue or are you still testing?
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
sorry I missed, comment 15, will respond again later
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Assignee changed from Wolf-Henning Kusber to Andreas Kohlbecker
Updated by Wolf-Henning Kusber almost 5 years ago
#15
is changed, but not in a proper way.
The articles are linked to the validating name. The articles refer to the reason why the invalid name is invalid (see above)
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- File picture437-1.png picture437-1.png added
- File picture437-2.png picture437-2.png added
- Assignee changed from Andreas Kohlbecker to Wolf-Henning Kusber
I don't quite understand the problem.
Navicula adminensis is validating Navicula adminii and this validation is done according to the rule "Art. 8.2" as published in "Turland, at al 2017"
If you are looking at this relation from the side of Navicula adminensis it looks like this:
For Navicula adminii like this
In both cases the reason for the the necessity of validating the name Navicula adminii is made available via the footnote key which follows the label of the relationship. This label is named "is validating" or "is validation for" depending on the side from which you are looking.
The article is not only linked to the validating name it is also linked to the validated name and explains why it has been validated.
I can't see a problem here.
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from Feedback to In Progress
- Assignee changed from Wolf-Henning Kusber to Andreas Kohlbecker
we (Andreas & Henning) decided to move the footnote in front of the relationship label depending on direction of the relation currently shown.
In case of N. adminii the footnote should be placed BEFORE the relationship label.
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
- Assignee changed from Andreas Kohlbecker to Wolf-Henning Kusber
Andreas Kohlbecker wrote:
we (Andreas & Henning) decided to move the footnote in front of the relationship label depending on direction of the relation currently shown.
In case of N. adminii the footnote should be placed BEFORE the relationship label.
I discussed this suggestion again with Andreas Müller and came to the conclusion that the above suggestion would be confusing as it breaks the commonly accepted convention that foonotes are coming after the text they are referring to. The implementation of will therefore stay as is is.
I suggest to close this issue now.
Updated by Andreas Kohlbecker almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Closed
- % Done changed from 80 to 100