TG2-VALIDATION_OCCURRENCESTATUS_NOTEMPTY

[godfoder]

TestField	Value
GUID	eb4a17f6-6bea-4cdd-93dd-d5a7e9d1eccf
Label	VALIDATION_OCCURRENCESTATUS_NOTEMPTY
Description	Is there a value in dwc:occurrenceStatus?
TestType	Validation
Darwin Core Class	Occurrence
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:occurrenceStatus
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	COMPLIANT if dwc:occurrenceStatus is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT
Data Quality Dimension	Completeness
Term-Actions	OCCURRENCESTATUS_NOTEMPTY
Parameter(s)
Source Authority
Specification Last Updated	2023-09-18
Examples	[dwc:occurrenceStatus="?": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:occurrenceStatus is not EMPTY"]
	[dwc:occurrenceStatus="": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:occurrenceStatus is EMPTY"]
Source	ALA
References
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes

[Tasilee]

Why did I put NOT_CORE? It seems a simple easy to test and useful FLAG right now. As a VALIDATION, it would also add meaningfully to #135 but it also shapes like a NOTIFICATION as per #58?

[ArthurChapman]

I think it was one of those that is empty 90% of the time so would create millions of flags. Thinking back - wasn't there some problem with how people were using occurrenceStatus (i.e. to be more than just Present/Absent? One, I guess, assumes if it is blank, then it is present. Because of this, I think we agreed that it shouldn't be CORE

[Tasilee]

This relates to an existing ALA test of the type we would call NOTIFICATION that says "occurrence status is empty so we are assuming "present". This still seems like a wise thing to me. Yes, it will be flagged a lot, but in this case (as we discussed in Gainesville) - sometimes we need to make a point :) "Please PUT THE OCCURRENCE STATUS IN!"

[ArthurChapman]

I believe this is a VALIDATION not a NOTIFICATION. However, because we have #75 I believe we can delete this one altogether as #75 states that if it is EMPTY then replace with "Present". In spite of @Tasilee's argument above - I think just having an Annotation that says something like "basisOfRecord was EMPTY and it has thus been assumed to be Present" I don't believe (especially in interests of keeping it Simple and the number of annotations as few as possible) I think this is redundant and thus NOT CORE

[Tasilee]

Replied in last email. We need it to justify the amendment

…

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:07 AM Arthur Chapman ***@***.***> wrote: I believe this is a VALIDATION not a NOTIFICATION. However, because we have #75 <#75> I believe we can delete this one altogether as #75 <#75> states that if it is EMPTY then replace with "Present". In spite of @Tasilee <https://github.com/Tasilee>'s argument above - I think just having an Annotation that says something like "basisOfRecord was EMPTY and it has thus been assumed to be Present" I don't believe (especially in interests of keeping it Simple and the number of annotations as few as possible) I think this is redundant — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#117 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGWRXjV2W-yklKt4UrSXC5rhzKZIIV2fks5uTKC8gaJpZM4Rhrya> .

-- [image: untitled] *Lee Belbin* Science Advisor Atlas of Living Australia National Research Collections Australia, National Collections & Marine Infrastructure, CSIRO *|* Clunies Ross Street, Acton ACT 2601 *|* GPO Box 1700, Canberra ACT 2601 Phone: +61 0419 374 133 *| *lee.belbin@csiro.au <leebelbin@gmail.com> *|* www.ala.org.au *|* http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Collections

[Tasilee]

Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted".

Also changed "Field" to "TestField", "Output Type" to "TestType" and updated "Specification Last Updated"