Closed caterinap closed 7 years ago
Yes, this needs some more precise definition in the glossary.
No problem for creating the hash. Empty fields are also adding information to the string that is hashed (i.e. the information that the field was empty).
In my understanding, we need to revise or drop the label for mandatory fields. We were talking about two types of 'mandatory':
measurementID
has been generated. (basisOfRecord
will be redefined, see #14). measurementUnit_original
). The output of this includes the columns mandatory for 1. I don't think specimenID/occurenceID is mandatory in any of those senses.
I have the impression we compile an hash-value just to have it. Or do we need it somewhere? What about all the other _ID
columns (beside occurrenceID)? ID is just useful for (larger) machine-readability. Doe we really need it? I think we can also live with (unique) characters.
You are right, such a globally valid measurementID is not needed within BExIS or within a single dataset. I suggested it, since a globally unique identifier is necessary for a decentralised merging of multiple datasets. But this is for later (and can be done on the data user side at any time). For now, having the data provider in mind, it might be least demanding and distracting if we just go for an optional user-defined measurementID which is consistent within the dataset and may refer to further information, such as measurement accuracy.
Following Andreas' comment, I'll drop this for now. No need for a global identifier. The user can provide dataset-specific IDs to link multivariate measurements.
measurementID
isOnly 'measurementValue_original', 'scientificName_original', 'measurementType_original', 'basisOfRecord' are mandatory fields, the other ones are not. Is this a problem? (I guess that
specimenID
is now calledoccurenceID
)