Project

General

Profile

feature request #8175

add name facts to cdm light export

Added by Katja Luther 2 months ago. Updated about 2 months ago.

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

100%

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 issues New 05/08/2017

Associated revisions

Revision 852a1a9e (diff)
Added by Katja Luther 2 months ago

fix #8175: name facts should be exported by cdm light export

Revision 24b61cf8 (diff)
Added by Katja Luther 2 months ago

ref #8175: name facts in a separate table

Revision 4bdb6c0d (diff)
Added by Katja Luther about 1 month ago

fix #8175: name facts should be exported by cdm light export

Revision 68eaf974 (diff)
Added by Katja Luther about 1 month ago

ref #8175: name facts in a separate table

History

#1 Updated by Katja Luther 2 months ago

  • Status changed from New to Resolved
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50

#2 Updated by Katja Luther 2 months ago

  • Assignee changed from Katja Luther to Andreas Müller

please review

#3 Updated by Katja Luther 2 months ago

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

#4 Updated by Katja Luther 2 months ago

the name facts are moved to their own table.

#5 Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months ago

  • Assignee changed from Andreas Müller to Katja Luther

please do first review on nightly

#6 Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months 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

#7 Updated by Andreas Müller about 2 months 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.

#8 Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months 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

#9 Updated by Katja Luther about 2 months ago

  • % Done changed from 50 to 100

Also available in: Atom PDF

Add picture from clipboard (Maximum size: 40 MB)