TG2-VALIDATION_GEOREFERENCEDDATE_NOTEMPTY

[Tasilee]

TestField	Value
GUID	e1765718-0964-4b40-9451-a66b23ca6268
Label	VALIDATION_GEOREFERENCEDDATE_NOTEMPTY
Description	Is there a value in dwc:georeferencedDate?
TestType	Validation
Darwin Core Class	Location
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:georeferencedDate
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	COMPLIANT if dwc:georeferencedDate is bdq:NotEmpty; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT
Data Quality Dimension	Completeness
Term-Actions	GOREFERENCEDDATE_NOTEMPTY
Parameter(s)
Source Authority
Specification Last Updated	2024-02-07
Examples	[dwc:georeferencedDate="1963-03-08T14:07-0600": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:georeferencedDate is bdq:NotEmpty"]
	[dwc:georeferencedDate="": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:georeferencedDate is bdq:Empty"]
Source	TG2
References
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes	A COMPLIANT response on this test may have some quality value in some use cases, but a NOT_COMPLAINT response doesn't without the context of a georeference.

[chicoreus]

Problematic as phrased, Will improperly fail for any data that lacks a georeference where the dwc:georefencedDate is correctly empty.

Needs dwc:decimalLatitude as an information element consulted.

Propose specification:

COMPLIANT if dwc:decimalLatitude is EMPTY or dwc:georeferencedDate is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT

[chicoreus]

Principle: A test should test one thing. As phrased "COMPLIANT if dwc:georeferencedDate is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT" it is testing both the presence of a georeference and the presence of this element of georeference metadata. Properly phrased, it should only assess the presence of georeference metadata if there is a georeference to have metadata.

[Tasilee]

I agree @chicoreus that a test should test one thing, or more accurately, one concept (as many tests apply to multiple Information Elements).

Here, a COMPLIANT response may have value, but I agree that a NOT_COMPLAINT response doesn't, without the context of a georeference. This IS a reason for this test to be not CORE and this reason (as I mentioned earlier) should be in the Notes, and this test should have a DO NOT IMPLEMENT tag.

[Tasilee]

I have changed the Notes to "A COMPLIANT response on this test may have some quality value in some use cases, but a NOT_COMPLAINT response doesn't, without the context of a georeference."

[chicoreus]

@Tasilee I don't think so. We can actually fix this so that it is useful, still supplementary, but useful. This is one of a large number of tests, some of which are CORE where we do have to work out the appropriate way to identify when the data values should correctly be empty.

[chicoreus]

We can fix this with

COMPLIANT if dwc:decimalLatitude is EMPTY or dwc:georeferencedDate is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT

as proposed above.

[chicoreus]

This is a general pattern for a number of tests of metadata terms that depend on the presence of other terms.

[ArthurChapman]

@chicoreus - I'd be happy to go along with that. I think, though, that anyone attempting to implement this or make it a CORE test at a later date would need to look at all the implications. Not something we want to spend time on now.

[Tasilee]

Changing the Expected Response to

COMPLIANT if dwc:decimalLatitude is EMPTY or dwc:georeferencedDate is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT

doesn't make sense as the response will be COMPLIANT if dwc:decimalLatitude is EMPTY regardless of the status of dwc:georeferencedDate. We are attributing 'quality' via a term not the focus of the test.

This raises the general concept that at least some NOTEMPTY tests are potential ISSUEs rather than VALIDATIONs. Maybe

POTENTIAL_ISSUE if dwc:georeferencedDate is EMPTY and dwc:decimalLatitude is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_ISSUE

?

[Tasilee]

This is the same test as #227. Closing as Duplicate