TG2-ISSUE_ANNOTATION_NOTEMPTY

[iDigBioBot]

TestField	Value
GUID	fecaa8a3-bbd8-4c5a-a424-13c37c4bb7b1
Label	ISSUE_ANNOTATION_NOTEMPTY
Description	Are there any annotations associated with the record?
TestType	Issue
Darwin Core Class	oa:target
Information Elements ActedUpon
Information Elements Consulted	AllDarwinCoreTerms
Expected Response	EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if bdq:annotationSystem is not available; POTENTIAL_ISSUE if an annotation in bdq:annotationSystem exists with a matching bdq:annotationAlertIf; otherwise NOT_ISSUE.
Data Quality Dimension	Reliability
Term-Actions	ANNOTATION_NOTEMPTY
Parameter(s)	bdq:annotationSystem
bdq:annotationAlertIf
Source Authority	bdq:annotationSystem default = "W3C Web Annotation" {[https://www.w3.org/annotation/]} {"oa:Annotation vocabulary" {[https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/]}
	bdq:annotationAlertIf default = "oa:Annotation with oa:hasTarget having as object any dwciri:term instance that is part of the SingleRecord under test." {[https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/]}
Specification Last Updated	2023-09-17
Examples	[bdq:annotationAlertIf="": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_ISSUE, Response.comment="bdq:annotationAlertIf is EMPTY"]
	[bdq:annotationAlertIf="?": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=POTENTIAL_ISSUE, Response.comment="bdq:annotationAlertIf is not EMPTY"]
Source	ALA, Lee Belbin
References	W3C Web annotation Data Model: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model W3C Web Annotation Vocabulary: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/#annotation TDWG Annotations Interest Group (https://www.tdwg.org/community/annotations/)
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes	While there is a W3C standard on 'web annotation', there is no TDWG recommendation on how this standard could be applied to annotating Darwin Core records. While implementation of this test is currently problematic, TG2 considers annotations attached to any aspect of a Darwin Core record justifies this test as a placeholder in the hope of future developments.

[Tasilee]

l corrected "ao:" typo and I'm happy with those changes, except for

bdq:annotationAlertIf default = "oa:annotation with oa:target having as object any dwciri:term instance that is part of the SingleRecord under test."

Why not

bdq:annotationAlertIf default = "oa:annotation associated with any dwciri:term instance." ?

[chicoreus]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 16:39:00 -0700 Lee Belbin @.***> wrote:

Why not

bdq:annotationAlertIf default = "oa:annotation associated with any dwciri:term instance." ?

Because then the presence of any oa:annotation associated with any dwciri term would cause the test to return POSSIBLE_PROBLEM for any record tested.

But, that phrasing should work (and perhaps better, as the same criteria could more easily be used across tests, I think) if we bring the concept expressed by the "part of the SingleRecord under test" into the phrasing of the specification of the test itself. Our current phrasing does not do that.

[Tasilee]

Thanks @chicoreus - so what are you specifically suggesting?

[ArthurChapman]

Updated Source Authority to change ao:annotation to ao:annotation and ao:target to ao:hasTarget in line with the W3C Web Vocabulary. Added a References to the W3C Web Vocabulary.

[ArthurChapman]

@chicoreus - How do you suggest changing the Expected Response? Are you suggesting

EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if bdq:annotationSystem is not available; POTENTIAL_ISSUE if an annotation in bdq:annotationSystem exists with a matching bdq:annotationAlertIf as part of a SingleRecord under test; otherwise NOT ISSUE.

and changing the definition of bdq:annotationAlertIf default = "oa:annotation associated with any dwciri:term instance."

Do we use SingleRecord as one or two words?

[Tasilee]

Updated the Source Authority from

| | bdq:annotationSystem default = "oa:Annotation" | | | bdq:annotationAlertIf default = "oa:Annotation with oa:hasTarget having as object any dwciri:term instance that is part of the SingleRecord under test." |

to

| | bdq:annotationSystem default = "oa:Annotation" {[https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/]}| | | bdq:annotationAlertIf default = "oa:Annotation with oa:hasTarget having as object any dwciri:term instance that is part of the SingleRecord under test." {[https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/]} |

[Tasilee]

Post Zoom 11/7/2023, I have aligned the Source Authority with the suggested syntax:

bdq:annotationSystem default = "W3C Web Annotation" {[https://www.w3.org/annotation/]} {"oa:Annotation vocabulary" {[https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/]}|

[Tasilee]

Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted"

I am unsure about this one. I am presuming "Consulted".

Also, is the syntax "AllDarwinCoreTerms" correct?

[ymgan]

From 1.5 About the tests, their use and specifications (Informative) (Lee)

1. Value is the returned result for the test, i.e. numeric for measures, a controlled vocabulary (consisting of exactly COMPLIANT or NOT_COMPLIANT) for validations or Issues (NOT_ISSUE, POSSIBLE_ISSUE, ISSUE), either a numeric value or a controlled vocabulary (consisting of exactly COMPLETE or NOT_COMPLETE for Measures, and a data structure (e.g., a list of key value pairs) for proposed changes for Amendments.

Expected Response in this issue:

• missed an underscore NOT_ISSUE.
• uses POTENTIAL_ISSUE, but the text in standards document is POSSIBLE_ISSUE

[ArthurChapman]

Thanks @ymgan and good pickup. I have fixed the Expected Response - @Tasilee Document needs to be corrected.