Closed Tasilee closed 7 months ago
TestField | Value |
---|---|
GUID | fffdc42b-b15e-4450-9e6a-f4181a319106 |
Label | VALIDATION_PATHWAY_NOTEMPTY |
Description | Is there a value in dwc:pathway? |
TestType | Validation |
Darwin Core Class | Occurrence |
Information Elements ActedUpon | dwc:pathway |
Information Elements Consulted | |
Expected Response | COMPLIANT if dwc:pathway is bdq:NotEmpty; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT |
Data Quality Dimension | Completeness |
Term-Actions | PATHWAY_NOTEMPTY |
Parameter(s) | |
Source Authority | |
Specification Last Updated | 2024-02-10 |
Examples | [dwc:pathway="transportStowaway": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:pathway is bdq:NotEmpty"] |
[dwc:pathway="": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:pathway 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:pathway. This test could have value in determining 'quality' for a specific set of data quality needs/use cases. |
As with #288, this doesn't fit well in the CORE use case of validation of occurrence data, it is much more likely to apply to regional checklist data. We need to work out how to represent this.
Almost all occurrence data will lack this term. It is valuable, but not for the CORE use case as defined by TG3.
Additional terms very likely needed as Consulted Information Elements.
@chicoreus - extensive details on a use case for this test given in the Groom et al. reference. Hence the recent introduction of this term into Darwin Core.
Notes updated to delete reference to leading and trailing blanks.