search

tdwg / bdq

Biodiversity Data Quality (BDQ) Interest Group
https://github.com/tdwg/bdq
43 stars 7 forks source link

TG2-VALIDATION_REPRODUCTIVECONDITION_NOTEMPTY #262

Closed Tasilee closed 7 months ago

Tasilee commented 9 months ago
TestField Value
GUID 3eefe72c-4c7d-4dee-89b6-e9d91d3f1981
Label VALIDATION_REPRODUCTIVECONDITION_NOTEMPTY
Description Is there a value in dwc:reproductiveCondition?
TestType Validation
Darwin Core Class Occurrence
Information Elements ActedUpon dwc:reproductiveCondition
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response COMPLIANT if dwc:reproductiveCondition is bdq:NotEmpty; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT
Data Quality Dimension Completeness
Term-Actions REPRODUCTIVECONDITION_NOTEMPTY
Parameter(s)
Source Authority
Specification Last Updated 2024-02-07
Examples [dwc:reproductiveCondition="non-reproductive": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:reproductiveCondition is bdq:NotEmpty"]
[dwc:reproductiveCondition="": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:reproductiveCondition is bdq:Empty"]
Source TG2
References
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes The vast majority of current biodiversity data will be expected to not have a value in dwc:reproductiveCondition. This test could have value in determining 'quality' for a specific set of data quality needs/use cases.
Tasilee commented 9 months ago

This 'test' reminds me about the VOCABULARY tag. In the Darwin Core terms Notes one finds statements like this "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary. This term has an equivalent in the dwciri: namespace that allows only an IRI as a value, whereas this term allows for any string literal value."

Do we not use VOCABULARY where one aspires to having one or just when there is one (agreed one)? I presume the latter?

chicoreus commented 7 months ago

@Tasilee in my understanding, thus far, we've been phrasing core and supplementary tests involving vocabularies as ones that we can actually point to a existing vocabulary, and tagging as immature/incomplete ones where a vocabulary doesn't exist yet.

Tasilee commented 7 months ago

Looking at @ArthurChapman's latest definitions of CORE etc, I agree with you. This one should be immature/incomplete, mainly due to the lack of vocab (as it stands). It would fit 'Supplementary' on the basis of 0.3% hit rate in GBIF but I guess the the vocab status should take precedence.

I'm now thinking it would be neat to write something of the 'conciseness' of the logic of an Expected Response for determining if a test should be CORE, Supplementary, Immature/Incomplete and DO NOT IMPLEMENT. It could tighten up our definitions and make it easier for those following us to determine status.