TG2-VALIDATION_RECORDEDBY_NOTEMPTY

[Tasilee]

TestField	Value
GUID	986ad95d-ffa1-4e3b-a6cb-ed943c87be0d
Label	VALIDATION_RECORDEDBY_NOTEMPTY
Description	Is there a value in dwc:recordedBy?
TestType	Validation
Darwin Core Class	location
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:recordedBy
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	COMPLIANT if dwc:recordedBy is bdq:NotEmpty; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT
Data Quality Dimension	Completeness
Term-Actions	RECORDED_NOTEMPTY
Parameter(s)
Source Authority
Specification Last Updated	2024-02-04
Examples	[dwc:recordedBy="Bob Pearson": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:recordedBy is bdq:NotEmpty"]
	[dwc:recordedBy="": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:recordedBy is bdq:Empty"]
Source	TG2
References
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes	This bdq:Supplementary test is not regarded as CORE (cf. bdq:CORE) because it is not widely applicable to the CORE use case.

[Tasilee]

What are the reasons this test shouldn't be considered CORE? It had a score of 4.5. A value occurs in ~75% of GBIF records.

[ArthurChapman]

I can't see a reason. I can't see any discussion on the issue. Fallen through the cracks?

[chicoreus]

An argument for Supplemental is that recorded by is not a particularly pertenent term for the CORE use case of what organisms occurred where when. CORE isn't just the tests we think are good to implement, it is specifically tied to the Use Case (sensu the framework) of research analysis of occurrence data as identified by TG3. Simply being populated a lot of the time isn't adequate for inclusion in CORE, the test must pertain to the usability of the data for these research purposes.

[Tasilee]

Even in my limited experience in the ALA, I found dwc:recordedBy very handy in sorting the 'wheat from the chaff', particularly in some species groups. Having a value for this term had value. How much is personal.