Open nielsklazenga opened 8 years ago
Niels, is this a case of providers need to map their data different? To me it seems the differentiation between occurrenceRemarks and habitat is consistent with DWC, and clear.
locationRemarks.
opps, yes locationRemarks. That would of require adding locationRemarks to HISPID.
Yes, that was my suggestion. Perhaps a bit cryptic.
To be clearer, what we currently have in the habitat field are notes. I suggest that 'habitat' needs to come from a controlled vocabulary, just like vegetation etc. and that the notes that are currently in the field should go to locationRemarks.
HISCOM 2016: agreed to map hab
to dwc:locationRemarks; keep dwc:habitat and add dwc:locationRemarks.
I already brought this up in issue #23, but now it turns out that what we deliver as dwc:habitat is in dwc:locationRemarks in the AVH data set in GBIF (http://www.gbif.org/dataset/4ce8e3f9-2546-4af1-b28d-e2eadf05dfd4), so I think we should move on it and make the data sets consistent. It is the right thing to do anyway.