TG2-VALIDATION_PREPARATIONS_STANDARD

[ArthurChapman]

TestField	Value
GUID	4758ea74-d2d3-4656-b17b-4b30147af4dc
Label	VALIDATION_PREPARATIONS_STANDARD
Description	Does the value of dwc:preparations occur in bdq:sourceAuthority?
TestType	Validation
Darwin Core Class	MaterialEntity
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:preparations
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the bdq:sourceAuthority is not available; INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:preparations is EMPTY; COMPLIANT if the value of each element in the list of elements in dwc:preparations is in the bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT.
Data Quality Dimension	Conformance
Term-Actions	PREPARATIONS_STANDARD
Parameter(s)	bdq:sourceAuthority
Source Authority	bdq:sourceAuthority default = "Darwin Core Preparations {[https://dwc.tdwg.org/list/#dwc_preparations]} {dwc:preparations vocabulary API [NO CURRENT API EXISTS]}
Specification Last Updated	2024-02-08
Examples	[dwc:preparations="photograph": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:preparations has an equivalent in the bdq:sourceAuthority"]
	[dwc:preparations="tree": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:preparations does not have an equivalent in the bdq:sourceAuthority"]
Source	TG2
References	Darwin Core Maintenance Group (2021). Preparations Controlled Vocabulary List of Terms. Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG). (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/preparations)
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes	Currently, it appears that no full Vocabulary exists for dwc:preparations making this test difficult to implement. Best practice for dwc:preparations is a pipe delimited list, implementations should split the list into elements and test each element against the source authority. This bdq:Supplementary test is not regarded as CORE (cf. bdq:CORE) because of one or more of the reasons: not being widely applicable; not informative; not straightforward to implement or likely to return a high percentage of either bdq:COMPLIANT or bdq:NOT_COMPLIANT results (cf bdq:Response.result). A Supplementary test may be implemented as CORE when a suitable use case exists.

[ArthurChapman]

@tucotuco There doesn't appear to be a vocabulary API on GBIF for this one - following format of others it would be at https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/Preparations/concepts. Do you know if one is on the way? if not what should we put in the Source Authority? Also required for #280

[chicoreus]

Note that the definition of dwc:preparations expects delimited list, and the best practice is to have a pipe separated list, definition of this test needs to split on the pipe character (or attempt to detect a separator, or take potential separators as a parameter)and test each element of the list against the source authority separately. "A list (concatenated and separated) of preparations and preservation methods for a dwc:MaterialEntity."

[tucotuco]

@tucotuco There doesn't appear to be a vocabulary API on GBIF for this one - following format of others it would be at https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/Preparations/concepts. Do you know if one is on the way? if not what should we put in the Source Authority? Also required for #280

No, there isn't one. I don't see it on the horizon either. It is complicated by relationships for preservation methods, counts or material entities and so on.

[chicoreus]

No vocabulary exists at this time. Whether there is an API is irrelevant for short vocabularies, an API is important for larger rapidly changing vocabularies such as taxon names, but for short relatively static vocabularies all we need to reference is the vocabulary, no API needed. The phrasing of the sourceAuthority implies that a vocabulary exists, while it is actually just a reference to the term that to which the vocabulary would be applied.

bdq:sourceAuthority default = "Darwin Core Preparations {[No Current Vocabulary Exists]}"

We only need to specify vocabulary and API when an API is relevant to consult. This form of phrasing needs to be examined in multiple other tests as well.

[Tasilee]

Given the discussion, I've set this to Immature/Incomplete.