-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
TG2-ISSUE_DATAGENERALIZATIONS_NOTEMPTY #72
Comments
Comment by Paula Zermoglio (@pzermoglio) migrated from spreadsheet: |
Comment by Arthur Chapman (@ArthurChapman) migrated from spreadsheet: |
Comment by Arthur Chapman (@ArthurChapman) migrated from spreadsheet: |
Comment by Arthur Chapman (@ArthurChapman) migrated from spreadsheet: |
I can see a case for NAME (higher taxonomy) and SPACE (lower spatial resolution), but do we have any precedent or examples for TIME? I can't think of any. |
Maybe someone doesn't want people to know where they were on a particular day? In our data sensitivity document I don't think we considered TIME. But there may be some that don't want it known what days certain animals hatch - turtles on a particular beach, for example. Not sure, but if it is the one tests does it hurt to include? |
I'm ok with leaving TIME in and I'll be interested to hear other comments. |
I would keep TIME but I'm not sure about mixing the 3 under the same test. But since there is only 1 Dwc term, maybe that's enough for now. |
In this record - the Dimension - should be "Other" and not "Space, Time, Name" - as although it does refer to data generalizations in those three "Dimensions" the actual dwc Element it refers to (dwc:dataGeneralizations falls into the "Other" category. See separate Issue I am posting shortly |
My feeling is that we are using Dimension as a way of summarising the coverage of the tests, so while the term dwc:dataGeneralizations could be considered agnostic based on http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/#dataGeneralizations, we agreed to specifically allow this test to cover name, space and time. I find that a more useful strategy - and this is an issue for the Darwin Core Maintenance Group to review. |
@Tasilee What needs review from the Darwin Core Maintenance Group? |
@tucotuco: I was wondering if the recent acceptance of dwc:dataGeneralisations to name, time beyond space would benefit from being more explicit? I also seem to remember that we did have a few (non github) issues from Gainesville for DwC? Chasing... |
I think you mean dwc:dataGeneralizations, Lee |
yes, tired. @ArthurChapman do you remember any other issues from TG2 for Dwc? |
Not off hand. I am sure @tucotuco made notes in Gainesville of anything relevant to DwC |
Darwin Core does not have these concepts of Dimension, nor is dwc:dataGeneralizations limited to those three data quality concepts. I see the data quality standard as a layer applied on top of Darwin Core (or other standards where the terms are equivalent), and that Darwin Core itself must remain defined independently of that layer. |
As per meeting 21st March, NOTIFICATIONs will now be ISSUEs. |
After zoom meeting, changed POTENTIAL_ISSUE if dwc:dataGeneralizations is not EMPTY; otherwise NO_ISSUE to POTENTIAL_ISSUE if dwc:dataGeneralizations is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_ISSUE |
…RIPTION: Adding implementation and unit test for ISSUE_DATAGENERALIZATIONS_NOTEMPTY tdwg/bdq#72.
…ERALIZATIONS_NOTEMPTY.
From 1.5 About the tests, their use and specifications (Informative) (Lee)
Expected Response in this issue:
|
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: