You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Original HC size class (currently sizeClassScope in IPT) definition:
Size classes included in the study for the prospective taxa (e.g., only small mammals).
examples provided with HC paper: medium to larger mammals for camera traps, nets mesh small enough for small arctic fish
Original HC size class excluded (currently excludedSizeClassScope in IPT) definition:
Size classes excluded in the study for the prospective taxa (e.g., only small mammals).
examples provided with HC paper: live trapping exluded larger mammals
During first round of review we identified the following issues with this term:
As for the examples provided, this term is actually mixing sizes with taxonomic scope, sampling method and geographic scope.
A size class that was populated with "small / medium / large" is ambiguous enough that it would probably not really serve any purpose.
So we request input on whether to:
deprecate this term; or
turn it into a numeric field - which should probably allow for ranges - e.g., sizeInXXXXScope (in what? would this be length? volume? other? could it really be estimated? how often would this kind of info be reported to justify having a term for it?)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Since the apparent intended usage of these concepts is broad and vague, how does it serve anyone that wouldn't be served by just relegating this information to dwc:samplingProtocol or dwc:eventRemarks? I would recommend deprecating these.
Two terms in original HC refer to size class:
Original HC
size class
(currentlysizeClassScope
in IPT) definition:medium to larger mammals for camera traps
,nets mesh small enough for small arctic fish
Original HC
size class excluded
(currentlyexcludedSizeClassScope
in IPT) definition:live trapping exluded larger mammals
During first round of review we identified the following issues with this term:
So we request input on whether to:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: