Could `common_names_to_tax.json` be transformed into a valid mapping?

by stefanistrate - opened

Contrary to what the filename might suggest, common_names_to_tax.json doesn't define a one-to-one relationship at the moment. It's more like a many-to-many mapping, which is a bit weird to work with. I'm seeing one-to-many relationships, e.g. the common name "deer" being mapped to 3 different taxonomies. I'm also seeing many-to-one relationships, e.g. "squirrel" and "tree squirrels" are mapped to the same taxonomy. Could this situation be improved?

I believe this issue was not present in the original source (, since there all the mappings were contextual, i.e. a mapping was unique in the context of a dataset. The dataset name was unfortunately dropped when the mapping was imported to HF.


Society & Ethics org

Thanks for raising this! I can see how this would be weird to work with, and I'm more than happy to implement a different solution. I'll reach out to the maintainer of the original LILA ( to see if they have recommendations on how to consolidate the taxonomy + common_name mapping to avoid this awkward many-to-many situation, and I'll loop back here as soon as I have an idea for how to do it. If you have any preferences for what the final mapping (and an interface to it) could look like, let me know!

Sign up or log in to comment