I have finally mapped the BROKE-WEST dataset to the ratified Humboldt terms. I mapped it in a different way after chatting with John last year. I am trying to explore if using combinations of target scope per row in Humboldt table will make more sense instead of using pipe separated values (see below):

I feel it is a little confusing - each row in the Humboldt extension file seems to be conflating the Scopes and Event. For example the value of hasNonTargetTaxa for each row above has to check whether Taxon in Occurrences exist in ALL targetTaxonomicScope where eventID == “BROKE_WEST_RMT_001” (multiple records in Humboldt table) … 

I also have multiple questions when performing this mapping which I documented in the Rmarkdown here. 

Overall, I find it very challenging and complicated (took me 2 full days with the help of chatgpt) to write the code to fill in the boolean values (is___, has____) … 

I would love a third pair of eyes to help me to look at this. Is anyone willing to look at my work with me please? I am fine with walking you through at our usual meeting times.

GitHub repo: https://github.com/biodiversity-aq/humboldt-for-eco-survey-data 

This is the only script that I worked on these two weeks: https://github.com/biodiversity-aq/humboldt-for-eco-survey-data/blob/main/src/create-humboldt-ext.Rmd 

Humboldt Extension generated by the script: https://github.com/biodiversity-aq/humboldt-for-eco-survey-data/blob/main/output/2024-05-14_humboldt.txt 

@John, I saw that the new data model is updated - is there some instructions available somewhere where I can test the Publishing and Conceptual model please? 

Thank you so much!!

Cheers

Ming