tdwg
TG2-VALIDATION_DCTYPE_NOTEMPTY
| TestField | Value |
|---|---|
| GUID | 374b091a-fc90-4791-91e5-c1557c649169 |
| Label | VALIDATION_DCTYPE_NOTEMPTY |
| Description | Is there a value in dc:type? |
| TestType | Validation |
| Darwin Core Class | Record-level |
| Information Elements ActedUpon | dc:type |
| Information Elements Consulted | |
| Expected Response | COMPLIANT if dc:type is bdq:NotEmpty; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT |
| Data Quality Dimension | Completeness |
| Term-Actions | DCTYPE_NOTEMPTY |
| Parameter(s) | |
| Source Authority | |
| Specification Last Updated | 2023-09-18 |
| Examples | [dc:type="?": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dc:type is bdq:NotEmpty"] |
| [dc:type=" ": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dc:type is bdq:Empty"] | |
| Source | TG2 |
| References |
|
| Example Implementations (Mechanisms) | |
| Link to Specification Source Code | |
| Notes |
Comment by Lee Belbin (@Tasilee) migrated from spreadsheet: Added post scoring for consistency
This has been labelled non-core, but discussions at Gainesville suggested it was a good test. We disn't disscuss Sunday TDWG208 - should we re-install or not?
One argument for imposing an expectation that dcterms:type (populated with IRIs from DCMI Type Vocabulary) or dc:type (populated with string literals) be non-empty is that this term helps make occurrence data more broadly reusable in other communities. See the table in the TDWG RDF guide: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/rdf/index.htm#3.3_Imported_Dublin_Core_terms_that_have_non-literal_objects_and
A second argument (that @ pzermoglio made this evening) is that populating basisOfRecord entails an expectation that dc:type will be popluated with an appropriate parallel value. These are likely to be important discriminators for the nature of vouchers, particularly of observations, where dc:type may contain key information about the nature (image, video, audio) of the voucher.
On this basis, I'd advocate including a test for whether dc:type is empty in core.
Thanks @chicoreus. Subsequent discussions within the core group (!) support your conclusion.
Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted".
Also changed "Field" to "TestField", "Output Type" to "TestType" and updated "Specification Last Updated"