TG2-AMENDMENT_BASISOFRECORD_STANDARDIZED

iDigBioBot commented 6 years ago

TestField	Value
GUID	07c28ace-561a-476e-a9b9-3d5ad6e35933
Label	AMENDMENT_BASISOFRECORD_STANDARDIZED
Description	Proposes an amendment to the value of dwc:basisOfRecord using the bdq:sourceAuthority.
TestType	Amendment
Darwin Core Class	Record-level
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:basisOfRecord
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the bdq:sourceAuthority is not available; INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:basisOfRecord is bdq:Empty; AMENDED the value of dwc:basisOfRecord if it could be unambiguously interpreted as a value in the bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_AMENDED
Data Quality Dimension	Conformance
Term-Actions	BASISOFRECORD_STANDARDIZED
Parameter(s)	dwc:basisOfRecord vocabulary
Source Authority	bdq:sourceAuthority default = "Darwin Core basisOfRecord" {[https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:basisOfRecord]} {dwc:basisOfRecord vocabulary [https://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml]}
Specification Last Updated	2024-07-24
Examples	[dwc:basisOfRecord="Human obs": Response.status=AMENDED, Response.result=dwc:basisOfRecord="HumanObservation", Response.comment="dwc:basisOfRecord contains interpretable value"]
	[dwc:basisOfRecord="FossilSpecimen": Response.status=NOT_AMENDED, Response.result="", Response.comment="dwc:basisOfRecord contains match in the bdq:sourceAuthority so NOT_AMENDED"]
Source	VertNet
References
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes	The term dwc:basisOfRecord has the comment "Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the set of local names of the identifiers for classes in Darwin Core." The list of these values can be determined by searching https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/blob/master/vocabulary/term_versions.csv for rows with status="recommended" and rdf_type="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class". For example, the term http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/PreservedSpecimen has a local name PreservedSpecimen. For tests against a dwc:Occurrence record, the set of valid terms is more limited and embodied in the resource found at https://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/dwc/basis_of_record.xml, which contains the local name for the identifier, as well as preferred and alternate labels from which to standardize values.

iDigBioBot commented 6 years ago

Comment by Arthur Chapman (@ArthurChapman) migrated from spreadsheet: Should follow on after Line 57

ArthurChapman commented 5 years ago

What is the case if an Institution has all its collection as one type of "dwc:basisOfRecord" (like everything is a "FossilSpecimen"). Is there a case then that if the filed is EMPTY it can be populated from the source authority that might just have one value for that institution that is "FossilSpecimen"? Thus we would lkeave EMPTY out of INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET

tucotuco commented 5 years ago

I would be a hard-ass. If every row is of the same type, it is trivial to provide the value. This is a record-level test, and we can not rely on metadata to get the information.

ArthurChapman commented 5 years ago

I wan't thinking of using metadata, but looking at an example where an institution was running the tests and could set there Parameter as just being one value. Otherwise why is it Parameterized? But I am happy either way.

tucotuco commented 5 years ago

It is currently parametrized to provide a source authority against which to check.

Tasilee commented 5 years ago

We have two levels related to 'source authority' - the authority itself (Parameter required) and the terms it contains (VOCABULARY)?

Except for #75, all tests that have 'VOCABULARY', also have 'Parameterized' VOCABULARY is either Darwin Core - that I'd call internal as the tests have this as a foundation, or an external authority. Maybe we, like the full specifications of the Expected responses for annotations even if they have a corresponding validation, need to be explicit. That is we need to specify Darwin Core as the source authority where relevant?

Am I rambling? It wouldn't be the first time.

tucotuco commented 5 years ago

I do not see that issue #75 is or ever was parametrized.

Yes, the tests are designed to be used against concepts that match the definitions of the Darwin Core terms they reference, and so we should not have Darwin Core as an authority in any of our extant tests. However, "vocabularies of values" designed for use with Darwin Core (or indeed recommended to be used from the Darwin Core side) are not Darwin Core. I would say that these authorities always should be parametrized to decouple the tests from content that is much more mutable over time than the definitions of the Darwin Core terms.