Project

General

Profile

task #6841

[DISCUSS] Correct use of MediaSpecimen and derivates

Added by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago. Updated over 1 year ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
Highest
Category:
taxeditor
Target version:
Start date:
07/21/2017
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Severity:
normal

Description

MediaSpecimen were originally "invented" to allow handling Specimen which are available only as images/drawings/figures etc. and which therefore should explicitly handled as derived units in the specimen tree.

They were NOT intended to handle "image galleries" for e.g. specimen photos taken in the field, even not necessarily for handling photos taken from the specimen in a collection. For these photos we have the "image gallery" were images/media can simply be attached to a specimen without further defining how the photo "derived" from the original unit.

The typical characteristic of a media specimen is that it has exactly 1 media attached which is THE media representing the specimen. But, as being a derived unit, it usually should also be part of a collection and have an accession number (though maybe not known to the user).

Ordinary photos/media taken from the field unit or a specimen (also sound files for animals) were not intended to be used for MediaSpecimen and not intended to be connected to there originals via derivation events.

But the current implementation of the TaxEditor allows e.g. to add via right click menu media derivates to a field unit. For kind-of-media one can choose from "detail image", "Specimen Scan", "Living plant photo", "Artwork". If one chooses e.g. living plant photo this is not consistent with the intended semantics of MediaSpecimen and of derivates.
Currently we expect pictures taken in the field being attached as media in the media view. But this is not obvious for the user.

There are various solutions that need to be discussed,

  • handle ALL images attached to a specimen as derivates (in theory this might be correct, as there is not real difference between a specimen scan and an ordinary photo taken in the field, except maybe for the fact that one is stored in some kind of collection and the other is simply online but not related otherwise), this creates more complexity for ordinary images with no further available information, but unifies the handling of media. Problematic is if one wants to attache a media that is not really a derivate but maybe only related to the specimen, in this case the semantics is not correct
  • remove functionality to add media derivates directly to field units
  • keep it as it is and let the user decide (maybe improve documentation) - but requires "bug" fix in dataportal as currently the media specimen are not shown in taxon image gallery (as these derivates are not explicitly attached to the taxon it might even not be expected), only those derivates attached to the taxon should be shown if derived units are attached and not the whole field unit, this is also critical for the first solution
  • keep right click menu functionality but store media instead in media gallery instead creating a new derived unit
  • ...

Related issues

Related to Edit - bug #6297: [Overview] BGBM User group wishes 2017 New 05/29/2017

History

#1 Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago

  • Related to bug #6297: [Overview] BGBM User group wishes 2017 added

#2 Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago

  • Tags set to salvador, campanula

#3 Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from [DISCUSS] Correct use MediaSpecimen to [DISCUSS] Correct use of MediaSpecimen and derivates

#4 Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago

WGB (2017-07-22):

ich bin unterwegs, Diskussionsbeitrag also per Email.
Ich entnehme dem Post von Andreas, dass wir zwar eine Möglichkeit haben, Fotos von field units an eine solche als Derivat anzuhängen, diese aber an der falschen Stelle umgesetzt ist.
Wir brauchen sowohl bei der field- wie auch bei den derived units die Möglichkeit, media-objects (ich würde sagen: Als derived units) anzuhängen. Dies ist nicht die einzige Stelle im Specimen Baum, an der wir rein digitale Objekte abbilden – man denke nur an die Sequenzen. Zu den Mediaobjekten, die ich als derived unit der field unit betrachten würde, gehören neben den Abbildungen von Organismen bei der Aufsammlung auch reine Observationen, z.B. Tierstimmenaufnahmen, reine occurrence records, etc. Die Frage wäre hier eher, ob wir immer eine derived unit bilden oder die Field unit selbst als „specimen“ betrachten.
Die Unterscheidung zu dem EINEN MediaSpecimen (das auch irgendwie derived ist) wird mir nicht klar.

#5 Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago

TH (2017-07-24):

MediaSpecimen wurde ja v.a. “erfunden” um der Notwendigkeit Rechnung zu tragen, dass der Typus in der Hierarchie untergebracht werden kann, wenn er eine Illustration ist (http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art8#_ftn5).
Normale „media-objects“ können ja bereits an der FieldUnit angehängt werden und das war auch so geplant (Fotos von der Aufsammlung die der FU eindeutig zugeordnet werden können).
Das MediaSpecimen sollte so wie es ist (wenn denn alles korrekt funktioniert) beibehalten werden, dem Nutzer muss nur seine spezielle Funktion klar sein. Vielleicht mit einer Warnung (MouseOver) oder Pflichtfeldern (Sammlungsinformationen, Accessionnumber, Barcode etc.).
Ich würde also für Lösung drei plädieren (keep it as it is and let the user decide (maybe improve documentation) - but requires "bug" fix in dataportal as currently the media specimen are not shown in taxon image gallery (as these derivates are not explicitly attached to the taxon it might even not be expected), only those derivates attached to the taxon should be shown if derived units are attached and not the whole field unit, this is also critical for the first solution).
Ein MediaSpecimen sollte aber eigentlich eine Taxonzuordnung haben und dann auch im Portal erscheinen, insbesondere da MediaSpecimen ja im Prinzip für Typen kreiert wurde…

#6 Updated by Andreas Müller over 1 year ago

Andreas Müller wrote:

WGB (2017-07-22):

ich bin unterwegs, Diskussionsbeitrag also per Email.
Ich entnehme dem Post von Andreas, dass wir zwar eine Möglichkeit haben, Fotos von field units an eine solche als Derivat anzuhängen, diese aber an der falschen Stelle umgesetzt ist.
Wir brauchen sowohl bei der field- wie auch bei den derived units die Möglichkeit, media-objects (ich würde sagen: Als derived units) anzuhängen. Dies ist nicht die einzige Stelle im Specimen Baum, an der wir rein digitale Objekte abbilden – man denke nur an die Sequenzen. Zu den Mediaobjekten, die ich als derived unit der field unit betrachten würde, gehören neben den Abbildungen von Organismen bei der Aufsammlung auch reine Observationen, z.B. Tierstimmenaufnahmen, reine occurrence records, etc. Die Frage wäre hier eher, ob wir immer eine derived unit bilden oder die Field unit selbst als „specimen“ betrachten.
Die Unterscheidung zu dem EINEN MediaSpecimen (das auch irgendwie derived ist) wird mir nicht klar.

There are 2 issues,

  1. usage of MediaSpecimen<->DerivedUnit
  2. Media attached to SpecimenOrObservation<->Media as Derivation of SpecimenOrObservation

Here I will only discuss 2.). Generally it is possible to handle all images, sounds, etc. as derivation and it may even make sense sometimes. However, there are also problems involved:

  • redundant information: both classes, the media class and the derivation event class hold similar information (e.g. Agent/Artist, Date, ...)
  • complexity: 2 additional record/objects (derivation event, derived unit) are stored which usually do not hold any information, in case the media is not stored in any collection (with collection name, accession number, etc.)
  • unclear relationship to taxon: if a specimen is related to a taxon via an individuals association (e.g. Specimen feature in Factual Data View), images of this specimen are usually shown in the taxa image gallery. Also images of the according field unit are shown there as the field unit is considered to belong to the specimen. However, sibbling derivations of the specimen are currently not considered to belong the the specimen and therefore also do not show up in the taxon image gallery. Otherwise also images of specimen duplicates stored in other collections would automatically show up which is not necessarily wanted. Current rule is, we walk up to the root but not down on a sibbling path again to collect the images
  • no differentation between media specimen and simple images which are no part of a collection (1.)

So we should either

1.) handle ALL media as derivations and remove the direct specimen<->media relationship or
2.) adapt the TaxEditor user interface in a way that it is less confusing (e.g. images will always be handled in the tree as kind-of derivation, but there is the user may distinguish adding a media AND adding a media being a specimen itself (like a drawing or a catalogued image, ...)

Also available in: Atom PDF

Add picture from clipboard (Maximum size: 40 MB)