TG2-VALIDATION_OCCURRENCEID_COMPLETE

[iDigBioBot]

TestField	Value
GUID	3cfe9ab4-79f8-4afd-8da5-723183ef16a3
Label	VALIDATION_OCCURRENCEID_STANDARD
Description	Does dwc:occurrenceID contain a valid identifier?
TestType	Validation
Darwin Core Class	Occurrence
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:occurrenceID
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:ocurrenceID is EMPTY; COMPLIANT if (1) dwc:occurrenceID is a validly formed LSID, or (2) dwc:occurrenceID is a validly formed URN with at least NID and NSS present, or (3) dwc:occurrenceID is in the form scope:value, or (4) dwc:occurrenceID is a validly formed URI with host and path where path consists of more than just "/"; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT.
Data Quality Dimension	Conformance
Term-Actions	OCCURRENCEID_COMPLETE
Parameter(s)
Source Authority
Specification Last Updated	2024-04-02
Examples	[dwc:occurrenceID="https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/43047701": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:occurrenceID conforms to GUID structure"]
	[dwc:occurrenceID="42": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:occurrenceID does not conform to GUID structure"]
Source	VertNet
References	Darwin Core RDF Guide (2015). TG2 - Tools, Services and Workflows - Introduction #1.3.2.1 Persistent Identifiers (normative): https://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/rdf/index.htm#1.3.2.1_Persistent_Identifiers GUID Applicability Statement: https://github.com/tdwg/guid-as/blob/master/guid/tdwg_guid_applicability_statement.pdf LSID (Life Science Identifier): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSID URN (Uniform Resource Name): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name URI (Uniform Resource Identifier): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier NID (Namespace Identifier): A NID and NSS make up a URN, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name NSS (Namespace-Specific String): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes

[iDigBioBot]

Comment by Paul Morris (@chicoreus) migrated from spreadsheet:
This one feels like it should assert that the occurrenceID conforms to a well known IRI scheme, and should reference the Darwin Core RDF guide. http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/rdf/index.htm#1.3.2.1_Persistent_Identifiers I'd support: OCCURRENCEID_CONFORMS_TO_WELLKNOWN_IRI_SCHEME. See http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/rdf/index.htm#1.3.2.1_Persistent_Identifiers

[JoannaMcCaffrey]

@ArthurChapman two typos in 'uninique'

[ArthurChapman]

Thanks Joanna - fixed

[Tasilee]

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

[chicoreus]

Description doesn't conform to the rest of the test. There is no source authority.

Specification needs further work as well.

[chicoreus]

RDF Guide asserts that identifiers "SHOULD be globally unique, referentially consistent, and persistent" And /'if those identifiers are to be used to identify subject resources in RDF, they MUST also be in the form of an IRI."

This test can't readily assess the first three criteria (globally unique, referenially consistent (always returns the same object), and persistent), thought it can assess the later.

Better is probably to cite recommendation R1 from the guid applicability statement https://github.com/tdwg/guid-as/blob/master/guid/tdwg_guid_applicability_statement.pdf, recommending a PURL, LSID, UUID, DOI, other Handle, or http URI. These have patterns that could be detected by this test.

[ArthurChapman]

However Darwin Core doesn't require it to be globally unique, so probably needs further looking at

From DwC: An identifier for the dwc:Occurrence (as opposed to a particular digital record of the dwc:Occurrence). In the absence of a persistent global unique identifier, construct one from a combination of identifiers in the record that will most closely make the dwc:occurrenceID globally unique.

[chicoreus]

@ArthurChapman the "persistent global unique identifier," or "combination of identifiers in the record" are untenable to either write a specification for a test or to implement a test.

This one we would be much better off adopting recommendation R1 from the guid applicability statement. That is tenable to write a specification for and to write code to evaluate.

This is very similar to the problem we faced in #121 and #212

[Tasilee]

Thanks @chicoreus. I agree the GUID Applicability Statement is a fair base (Source Authority?), but what about the complexity of implementing #115?

[ymgan]

Thank you Lee for flagging this in your email. I have mixed feelings on this test.
Please see the discussions on this thread: tdwg/dwc#491

[tucotuco]

The recommendations for the term "Recommended best practice is to use a persistent, globally unique identifier" cannot be tested. I would put this into the "DO NOT IMPLEMENT" category.

[ArthurChapman]

I agree with @tucotuco suggestion. i.e. DO NOT IMPLEMENT

[chicoreus]

I mostly concur. The broad scope of the recommended best practice in the term itself is not practical to implement.

However, this is essentially the same test as VALIDATION_SCIENTIFICNAMEID_COMPLETE #212 (and supplementary #121) but performed on a different darwin core term with a different definition. Since we are supporting that test, in a form that is implementable, I suggest we frame a more precisely parallel test, VALIDATION_OCCURRENCEID_COMPLETE that tests for conformance to recommendation R1 from the guid applicability statement https://github.com/tdwg/guid-as/blob/master/guid/tdwg_guid_applicability_statement.pdf, recommending a PURL, LSID, UUID, DOI, other Handle, or http URI. These have detectable patterns that could be validated by this test. Like #212, this would be somewhat aspirational (and might go in supplemental rather than core).

If we don't we need to be very explicit about why we put a do not implement on #23 and have #212 in core (and #121 in supplementary).

The difference might be that scientific name id is expected to point to someone else's identifier, and occurrence id is very likely to be minted locally by the database of record for the occurrence. But, we need to be very explicit about why one and not the other., or we need a paralell test VALIDATION_OCCURRENCEID_COMPLETE based on the RDF guide.

@Tasilee I'm not understanding the reference to #115.