improve descriptions of concepts in Georeference Verification Status Vocabulary

AaronWilton commented 8 years ago

all terms in this vocabulary have concept title as the description. They are pretty self evident, but should we expand along the following lines?

verification required: verification of the georeference is required verified: the georeference has been verified verified by collector: the georeference has been verified by the collector verified by custodian: the georeference has been verified by the custodian of the specimen verified by contributor: the georeference was verified by the agent who contributed the specimen unverifiable: the georeference is unable to be verified

ben3000 commented 8 years ago

The closest match in our system to this element has the following terms. You'll note that we don't really care who verified it, but what the outcome was:

(nil): Locality has not been queried or validated before. Coordinates and identity are accepted at face value.
REV: Under Review. Coordinates have been queried, either as a result of an exception report from me using BIOCLIM analysis or from a FloraBase user query or the like.
POS: Position Changed. Coordinates have been checked and found to be inconsistent or incorrect. Coordinates have been subsequently changed.
IDE: Identity Changed. Coordinates were correct. However, the identity of the specimen was incorrect and changed.
PCN: Position Confirmed. Coordinates were correct. However, the identity of the specimen cannot be confirmed at this stage.
PIC: Position And Identity Confirmed. Coordinates have been checked and confirmed to be correct. Specimen has been re-identified and was correct. No changes were necessary.
UNV: Unverifiable. Both position and identity were found to be correct on the basis of the label data. However, a specialist has deemed the locality to be inconsistent with current knowledge of the taxon.

I don't think we should adopt the terms exactly, as they are too short and thus not descriptive enough. I just wanted to add this to show that we could take a slightly different angle on what we report.

AaronWilton commented 8 years ago

yes, I remember that we discussed the difference between a verification status and a verification outcome. I think the decision/discussion was that we did care who had done the verification (may impact on reliability), and that the outcome/changes would be reflected in the data.
Also the status of the identification is separated here too.

At least that's my recollection...

acvaughan commented 8 years ago

Leaving aside the ensuing discussion between Ben and Aaron, I think the expanded descriptions are a good idea.

nielsklazenga commented 8 years ago

HISCOM 2016: agreed

hiscom / hispid

improve descriptions of concepts in Georeference Verification Status Vocabulary #113