New Term - samplingEffortValue

[tucotuco]

New term

• Submitter: Humboldt Extension Task Group

• Efficacy Justification (why is this term necessary?): Part of a package of terms in support of biological inventory data.

• Demand Justification (name at least two organizations that independently need this term): The Humboldt Extension Task Group proposing this term consists of numerous organizations.

• Stability Justification (what concerns are there that this might affect existing implementations?): None

• Implications for dwciri: namespace (does this change affect a dwciri term version)?: Needs ecoiri: equivalent.
  Proposed attributes of the new term:

• Term name (in lowerCamelCase for properties, UpperCamelCase for classes): samplingEffortValue

• Term label (English, not normative): Sampling Effort Value

• Organized in Class (e.g., Occurrence, Event, Location, Taxon): Event

• Definition of the term (normative): The numeric value for the sampling effort expended during the dwc:Event.

• Usage comments (recommendations regarding content, etc., not normative): This term is meant to capture the total sampling effort value. To express details of how the effort was determined use eco:samplingEffortProtocol. For compilations it is recommend not to infer effort. An eco:samplingEffortValue must have a corresponding eco:samplingEffortUnit.

• Examples (not normative): 1900; 40; 5.5

• Refines (identifier of the broader term this term refines; normative): None

• Replaces (identifier of the existing term that would be deprecated and replaced by this term; normative): None

• ABCD 2.06 (XPATH of the equivalent term in ABCD or EFG; not normative): not in ABCD

[kingenloff]

Our ALA colleagues ask 'What happens if the samplingEffortValue and samplingEffortUnit require multiple values? Eg. “2 hours over 100m2”?'

Comment from YMG: Good point. I have a feeling that this is again related to eMoF gbif/rs.gbif.org#103 (comment) and gbif/rs.gbif.org#102. Do dwc:sampleSizeValue and dwc:sampleSizeUnit have a similar challenge? If we are to provide recommendation for this, perhaps we should align the practice across other general terms like dwc:sampleSizeValue and dwc:sampleSizeUnit?

Comment from KI: As with other terms where this potential exists, we should recommend using pipe separators, |, where multiple values exist. It would also be prudent to include in the comments/examples that it is recommended that data providers populate dwc:samplingEffort (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/samplingEffort) with verbatim sampling effort information.