Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I think it is a very bad idea to remove the geodeticdatum as a required field
if the coordinates are required. You really shouldn't assume anything about
coordinates if you don't know this information. If you do know it, it should be
filled in as WGS84. If you don't, it should be filled in as unknown. These are
very different from each other, because you are otherwise making a
falsification that is later undetectable - indistinguishable from coordinates
where the datum is actually known.
NomenclaturalCode is there as a required field to make sure that you an
distinguish taxa that might have the same scientificname, but in two different
codes. This may not even be possible in Madagascar, and it certainly isn't in
the data so far. So, though it probably would be fine to not require it in your
case, but it would not be fine globally.
A more general question though, why remove the requirements, which are in place
to assure data quality and usability, especially if it creates more work to
remove them? That seems antithetical to REBIOMA's main distinguishing
characteristic - data quality.
Original comment by gtuco.bt...@gmail.com
on 3 Aug 2011 at 2:48
Thanks John ! Very good remarks, so may be add some fields to raise the quality
because
users don't know that they can fill each field by NULL or "unknown". For
example, apart from geodaticdatum, as you are expert on georeferencing, the way
to be sure of the coordinates is to compare them from georeferencing method
based on locality description. My idea behind this was to use the GBIF
spreadsheet templates as a template too for REBIOMA Data Portal. Because this
will be used as a data management online before the MadBIF IPT.
Original comment by ajmrakot...@gmail.com
on 4 Aug 2011 at 11:12
Original comment by ajmrakot...@gmail.com
on 21 Oct 2011 at 8:29
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
ajmrakot...@gmail.com
on 3 Aug 2011 at 11:32