Dear Mike,
Obviously no need to apologize, since the beginning of the GRSF we said that it would have helped also to improve our source databases, from data modelling to content. In example FishSource has modified its model and added services accordingly, in FIRMS we also upgraded the data model ( e.g. we have introduced the notion of assessment unit vs true stock) and we have spotted some wrong metadata and imprecise reports which we are regularly fixing as they are encountered.
This being said, unless specific needs, the GRSF should not alter the source content if not for improving it, in example with mapping to standards.
FYI, a related issue on accented words was solved last week https://support.d4science.org/issues/12421 and all concerned records will be update with such fix in the coming days.
In conclusion, thanks for your clearance, in a separate thread I am going to ask for approving this set of RAM records.
Thanks again for your kind support
Best,
Aureliano
From: Michael Melnychuk mmel@u.washington.edu
Sent: 19 March 2019 8:04 PM
To: support@d4science.org; Gentile, Aureliano (FIAS); pasquale.pagano@isti.cnr.it; roberto.cirillo@isti.cnr.it
Cc: Charmane E. Ashbrook
Subject: Re: [StocksAndFisheriesKB - Bug #16264] capitalized grsf short names
hi all,
Thank you for looking into this. I didn't realize that it was an issue with capitalization in the RAM database - my apologies for that oversight. In a future version of the RAM database, we will correct these and other capitalization problems that we may find.
For now, please ignore our earlier comments regarding capitalization in the common names; if that was specified as the limiting factor for approval, those stocks can now be approved.
Comments regarding capitalization of latin names should still apply.
Mike