iDigBio is nearly complete with the process of integrating the GBIF Backbone into our backend and the process so far has been fairly painless. Thank for all the hard work you've put into building up this resource for the community.
I do have one (hopefully minor) change request:
Can you add in the parsed values for specificEpithet and infraspecificEpithet into the taxon file where they are available? Background: We're using a multi-term fuzzy match in elasticsearch to resolve taxonomy from records against the backbone, this is performing fairly well, and the more terms we add to the match criteria the better it becomes. The scientificName field in most specimens doesn't include authorship information, so is a relatively poor match overall against the scientificName field in the backbone. Most specimens supply the specificEpithet field though, so I was including it in our matching criteria until I realized that that field is missing from the backbone entirely.
Thanks,
- Alex
Hi Alex, I agree, the parsed name should be part of the core taxon file of the backbone dwc archive. I have created an issue here and hope to add the terms in the next backbone versions export: https://github.com/gbif/checklistbank/issues/18
Thanks, Markus
On 2 Feb 2017, at 16:03, godfoder <godfoder@acis.ufl.edumailto:godfoder@acis.ufl.edu> wrote:
iDigBio is nearly complete with the process of integrating the GBIF Backbone into our backend and the process so far has been fairly painless. Thank for all the hard work you've put into building up this resource for the community.
I do have one (hopefully minor) change request:
Can you add in the parsed values for specificEpithet and infraspecificEpithet into the taxon file where they are available? Background: We're using a multi-term fuzzy match in elasticsearch to resolve taxonomy from records against the backbone, this is performing fairly well, and the more terms we add to the match criteria the better it becomes. The scientificName field in most specimens doesn't include authorship information, so is a relatively poor match overall against the scientificName field in the backbone. Most specimens supply the specificEpithet field though, so I was including it in our matching criteria until I realized that that field is missing from the backbone entirely.
Thanks,
- Alex
_______________________________________________ API-users mailing list API-users@lists.gbif.orgmailto:API-users@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users
Alex, I have created a new dwc archive for the current backbone with parsed name fields. It is available as usual here: http://rs.gbif.org/datasets/backbone/backbone-current.zip
Markus
http://rs.gbif.org/datasets/backbone/readme.html
On 7 Feb 2017, at 10:43, Markus Döring <mdoering@gbif.orgmailto:mdoering@gbif.org> wrote:
Hi Alex, I agree, the parsed name should be part of the core taxon file of the backbone dwc archive. I have created an issue here and hope to add the terms in the next backbone versions export: https://github.com/gbif/checklistbank/issues/18
Thanks, Markus
On 2 Feb 2017, at 16:03, godfoder <godfoder@acis.ufl.edumailto:godfoder@acis.ufl.edu> wrote:
iDigBio is nearly complete with the process of integrating the GBIF Backbone into our backend and the process so far has been fairly painless. Thank for all the hard work you've put into building up this resource for the community.
I do have one (hopefully minor) change request:
Can you add in the parsed values for specificEpithet and infraspecificEpithet into the taxon file where they are available? Background: We're using a multi-term fuzzy match in elasticsearch to resolve taxonomy from records against the backbone, this is performing fairly well, and the more terms we add to the match criteria the better it becomes. The scientificName field in most specimens doesn't include authorship information, so is a relatively poor match overall against the scientificName field in the backbone. Most specimens supply the specificEpithet field though, so I was including it in our matching criteria until I realized that that field is missing from the backbone entirely.
Thanks,
- Alex
_______________________________________________ API-users mailing list API-users@lists.gbif.orgmailto:API-users@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users
_______________________________________________ API-users mailing list API-users@lists.gbif.orgmailto:API-users@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/api-users
participants (2)
-
godfoder -
Markus Döring