Question 5: Using Associations to document catalog number errors [JD - IZ]

[rondlg]

Description: This is following up on a discussion I had with Janeen a few weeks ago. My understanding is that the Associations tab is the correct place to document situations where there is possible confusion between the catalog numbers of two lots (e.g. a lot was mislabeled, entered into EMu incorrectly, or the same number was mistakenly assigned to two different lots in the pre-digital days and one needed to be re-cataloged), and I want clarification on what the best practices for recording that would be. In the past, we have recorded that information in Notes in several cases.

[rondlg]

Response: This information should not be buried in a notes field. In the past IZ has recorded this information on the Lot History tab. Ideally, the information on the tab needs to be separated into records that belong on the Relationship tab versus those that belong on the Associations tab. See Relationship Workflow document.and Associations Tab Workflow

From TDWG - examples of controlled vocabularies for relationship types:

• http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002456 (for the relation pollinated by)
• http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002455 (for the relation pollinates)
• https://www.inaturalist.org/observation_fields/879 (for the relation eaten by)

[rondlg]

@dangeloje here is the issue as discussion at EMu-hour. You can go ahead and document what you choose as the value here.

[dangeloje]

Our decision about what terms to use is the following:

• misnumbered as: Indicates that the current lot was incorrectly given the catalog number of the associated lot, such as by being mislabeled or entered into EMu incorrectly. The reciprocal of this relationship is number misused for.
• number misused for: Indicates that the associated lot was incorrectly given the catalog number of the current lot, such as by being mislabeled or entered into EMu incorrectly. The reciprocal of this relationship is misnumbered as.
• number swapped with: Indicates that the catalog numbers of the current lot and associated lot were deliberately swapped. This term is used for both sides of the relationship.