xmp:Rating may not be sufficient

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Moved here from Issue #71 by Bob Morris

Comment from Margaret Cawsey <Margaret.Cawsey@csiro.au> after the public 
comment period:

I think I've found another gap in the Audubon Core, or if not would be grateful 
if somebody could point out my blind spot. I'm looking for something like 
"Quality". For example, the recordists might rate the quality of a recording as 
poor, fair, good, very good or excellent.

xmp:Rating doesn't seem to cut it because it gives a number between 0-5 and 
specifies that it is user-assigned, as opposed to collector- or 
institution-assigned.

I am going to use the term Quality in my database for now, but wonder what to 
map it to - for example it could be mapped to xmp:Rating if that turns out to 
be the appropriate thing.

Comment from Steve: This isn't actually exactly relevant to this issue, so if 
the authors want to try to deal with it they may want to move it to its own new 
issue.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by morris.bob on 2 Jun 2013 at 9:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I don't think it is appropriate for AC to specify terminology for quality that 
is not published elsewhere. The idea to map to the XMP ratings to various 
community's usage would be good; so would be if TDWG wanted to make 
applicability declarations of other names for qualities.

Remark: In this context "User assigned" really means "assigned by the 
originator of the metadata record". That could just as well be assigned by 
virtue of a policy of the institution.

Original comment by morris.bob on 2 Jun 2013 at 9:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Per my comment, marking this as WontFix

Original comment by morris.bob on 2 Jun 2013 at 9:16

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 3 Jun 2013 at 4:58

• Added labels: Milestone-Release1.0

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 3 Jun 2013 at 10:30

• Now blocking: #3

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 9 Jun 2013 at 3:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

From Steve in separate document: "The second sub-concern involves Bob's 
response to the specific question raised by Margaret Cawsey.  He says that 
mapping the XMP ratings to various community usage (vs. the default "worst" to 
"best") could be done by communities outside AC.  I can buy that.  But if that 
is so, how would someone acquiring AC metadata ever know that such a mapping 
had occurred?  It seems that either the values of this term must conform to the 
"worst" to "best" scale only, or there must be some additional term 
(ac:ratingMapping or something like that) which would allow a metadata user to 
know that an alternative rating system was in use and how to find out what it 
is.  I'm not saying that you need to come up with additional terms.  I just 
think that it would NOT be good for communities to specify different meanings 
for the ratings unless there was a standard way for metadata consumers to find 
out what those meanings were.  In other words, I think the WontFix status is 
fine for this issue, but I would not flag this as a possible topic for an 
applicability statement defining other meanings without some kind of 
ac:ratingMapping term to go with xmp:Rating."

I will initiate a Task to explore this and specify any related issues. Leaving 
as WontFix for 1.0

Original comment by morris.bob on 18 Oct 2013 at 10:04

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Discussion should continue in Image #87

Original comment by morris.bob on 18 Oct 2013 at 10:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:58

• Added labels: Type-Defect