Adopting the UKSI

[davidnicholls125]

We are still thinking it would be desirable for NS to adopt the UKSI and think we may have a funding opportunity to move this forward. You provided some helpful comments a while ago on this which I incorporated into an update for trustees. I've attached this for information. I can't find a github issue about it so we may have just had an email exchange. Please could you update us on the likely time/cost and address the questions below. If you have any other thoughts then this would be useful too.

1. If we adopt the UKSI in full, how will we know when a record is submitted for a species not set up in our galleries? Maybe create a list of species with a single record and the date submitted?
2. We probably want to keep those taxon entries with made-up TVKs, ie. those not currently on the UKSI. You mentioned previously using scratchpad for this (though this doesn't mean anything to me!).
3. We currently have two drupal taxonomies - one is a species list and the other is for the gallery structure. Presumably a 'new' species would need to be added manually to these taxonomies as at present?
4. Years ago we used to be able to upload a csv with new species details that then added the species to the taxonomy and created a species page. This was lost in the D6 upgrade but is it possible to either create something similar or simplify the set up procedure?

[davidnicholls125]

Another thought/question! At present when there is an update to the UKSI on Indicia we run the software fix that you wrote to update the drupal names/tvks. Can this be automated to it all synchs?

[johnvanbreda]

@davidnicholls125 please can you upload the comments document mentioned above.

Some answers:

1. We could create an alert so you get an email, or a report which lists the species by first record date, so you can sort the most recent to the top.
2. What we would do is migrate all the data to UKSI where there is a direct match and then remove those taxa from your list. The remainder would be kept, which will include made-up TVKs, the + and ? taxa, and maybe some anomalies which will need to be sorted through (e.g. if there were mistakes in the TVK). I would modify the data entry tool to allow input of species on either list.
3. Correct as they define the internal menu structure and breadcrumbs. You would not have to add the species to the warehouse though.
4. Yes, we could rebuild a similar tool. I would prefer to keep this as a separate task to the UKSI switch though.

After the migration, the tool which helps keep your TVKs in sync to UKSI would still be required as now, as the same changes can happen.

[davidnicholls125]

Sorry, must have missed it earlier. Attached now.
I'm not sure that we still want to restrict the UKSI to just those species recorded in VC55 so this is probably one less task we need you to do.
Adopting the UKSI on NatureSpot.docx

[johnvanbreda]

@davidnicholls125 please can you confirm that the adoption of UKSI species group names is OK? This doesn't affect the menu structure, but would affect the following:

• When entering a species name during data entry, the group name is shown in the search results.
• On Wild Places and Parishes, the group names are shown on the Species List and Statistics tabs.
• Explore page Records tab - Taxon Group column.
• Explore page Species tab - Taxon Group column.
• Explore page Taxon Group tab.
  There may be one or two other places but I think that's the main ones.

[davidnicholls125]

Thanks John - a useful reminder. I've passed this onto the other trustees for feedback. It's not a game-changer but if, for example, we maintained a simple list of species names (and TVKs perhaps) together with our gallery taxon group names, would it be possible to use these? I'm not so bothered by the Explore pages as they are little used (too slow) but the others would work better if we were able to use the same groups as on our galleries.

[johnvanbreda]

I've had a good think about the group names. There is no quick and easy fix but we can store mapping from your TVKs to group names on the server and use this to generate report outputs. We'd need to include these group names in the Elasticsearch data as well so that they are available for all types of reports. I will send you a costing separately.

Note that the Explore pages are slow because they are using the PostgreSQL database directly. We didn't switch to the much faster Elasticsearch based reporting because of the issue with group names, so if we implement the above it would make sense to switch the Explore pages over.

[davidnicholls125]

Thanks. There doesn't appear to be any strong feelings about using the iRecord group names so it doesn't need to be hurdle. One issue however is on the verification page where we have verifiers for sub-groups, such as Sawflies, which will be subsumed into Hymenoptera. I've had a look at bringing the family name into the grid but this doesn't resolve it, though perhaps a filter could be designed to include all the relevant families.....
Good news about Explore however.

[johnvanbreda]

For a filter on sawflies, you can set a search for Symphyta on the Species or other higher taxa tab of the "What" filter pane. If there are any other menu groups you are concerned about let me know - as you say it is possible to build a filter based on a list of families.