Project

General

Profile

Actions

feature request #8175

closed

add name facts to cdm light export

Added by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago. Updated almost 3 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Highest
Assignee:
Category:
cdmadapter
Target version:
Start date:
03/12/2019
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:
Severity:
normal

Description

We decided to keep the name facts in cdm, so the name facts should be exported as well


Related issues

Related to Edit - bug #6627: Remaining cdm light issuesResolvedKatja Luther05/08/2017

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Resolved
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
Actions #2

Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller

please review

Actions #3

Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago

  • Related to bug #6627: Remaining cdm light issues added
Actions #4

Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago

the name facts are moved to their own table.

Actions #5

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther

please do first review on nightly

Actions #6

Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller

tested on nighlty with rem_conf_am:

created a namefact for Dianthella and exported subtree of Facchinia in classification Testclass.

the namefact was exported to the csv file NameFact and the source to FactSources

Actions #7

Updated by Andreas Müller almost 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
  • Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther

I think if you have tested it intensively it may be correct. For me it would take a lot of time to test.

Only question I have is if you have tested that protologues are handled correctly. I do not remember what the specification is for protologues but probably they should not go into the ordinary name facts.

If you think protologue handling is correct you may close the ticket.

Actions #8

Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Closed

Andreas Müller wrote:

I think if you have tested it intensively it may be correct. For me it would take a lot of time to test.

Only question I have is if you have tested that protologues are handled correctly. I do not remember what the specification is for protologues but probably they should not go into the ordinary name facts.

If you think protologue handling is correct you may close the ticket.

the protologues are handled like before in the scientific name table as concatenated protologue_uri string

Actions #9

Updated by Katja Luther almost 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 50 to 100
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF