Feature request: a button to edit/add HBS number

[JoyfulGen]

Some instruments on UMIL, such as this one, don't have an HBS number yet. I would love to be able to add one, when this is the case! I'm not sure how heavily supervised this edit should be; on the one hand, if a user is voluntarily adding an HBS number, we can assume they know about HBS numbers and we don't need to hold their hand, but on the other hand I guess we don't want users editing/deleting HBS numbers left and right. @kyrieb-ekat, what do you think?

[PouyaMohseni]

I was wondering whether we want a source for the HBS number

[kyrieb-ekat]

100% agree being able to add and edit an HBS number would be great I don't think we need to go to deep; honestly even down 2 levels required with optional up to 4 would be great. I don't think anyone but an editor should be able to make deletions; I think the source for these should just be the user who made the entity, there isn't always a list of instruments with their HBS number out there, for all the existing HBS catalog's do have many.

[PouyaMohseni]

I also have a few more questions. Do we want to prevent invalid HBS numbers from being submitted (e.g., if the sequence of numbers doesn’t match any valid HBS number)? Additionally, I was wondering whether the editorial approach for this is similar to that for labels/aliases with verification status, etc., with the only difference being in the deletion process.

[kyrieb-ekat]

Great questions; having invalid options sounds helpful, especially for the first few HBS numbers (the first of which can only be 1-5). Ensuing numbers can be anything but 0, technically, but I don't think I've ever seen anything in the first HBS "chunk" (e.g., ###.###.###-#) go higher than 5?

@JoyfulGen I'd be curious for your thoughts on this- a lot of the initial layers of HBS classification are basic (is it round, does it have a stick, etc), but I'm leery at some of the deeper decisions needed. Also- I don't think in the flowcharts (#337 ) show any way for first layer numbers to go super high anyway...?

[PouyaMohseni]

Would this feature also be relevant for MIMO classification, since some instances are missing it as well?

[JoyfulGen]

@kyrieb-ekat, I agree that it would be simplest to keep it at three or four numbers, but I think it would also be nice for people to add more numbers if they want to. For instance, sometimes I struggle to get even three numbers for a chordophone, but for a struck membranophone you can get to five or six numbers easily. Do you think it would be sufficient to just have a message that says something like "please only put as many numbers as you're confident with"?

[kyrieb-ekat]

Would this feature also be relevant for MIMO classification, since some instances are missing it as well?

No, MIMO uses its own system for numbers, and since it's attached to the institution I'm not sure we should add things they don't have. For now, at least, though we might end up talking with them later.

Do you think it would be sufficient to just have a message that says something like "please only put as many numbers as you're confident with"?

I like the idea of letting people baseline do 1 or 2, at least so instruments pop in the HBS facet, and don't mind a flag akin to what you have here.

[PouyaMohseni]

@kyrieb-ekat, maybe I am missing something, but I can see cases where UMIL (WikiData) is missing MIMO labels that already exist on the websites (e.g., Komet in MIMO -- ID: 6665, UMIL, and WikiData). So I was wondering whether we should direct users to add this information directly to WikiData, or whether we can act as a mediator again.