bdq
bdq copied to clipboard
tdwg
TG2-VALIDATION_MINDEPTH_INRANGE
| TestField | Value |
|---|---|
| GUID | 04b2c8f3-c71b-4e95-8e43-f70374c5fb92 |
| Label | VALIDATION_MINDEPTH_INRANGE |
| Description | Is the value of dwc:minimumDepthInMeters within the Parameter range? |
| TestType | Validation |
| Darwin Core Class | dcterms:Location |
| Information Elements ActedUpon | dwc:minimumDepthInMeters |
| Information Elements Consulted | |
| Expected Response | INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:minimumDepthInMeters is bdq:Empty, or the value is not interpretable as number greater than or equal to zero; COMPLIANT if the value of dwc:minimumDepthInMeters is within the range of bdq:minimumValidDepthInMeters to bdq:maximumValidDepthInMeters inclusive; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT |
| Data Quality Dimension | Conformance |
| Term-Actions | MINDEPTH_INRANGE |
| Parameter(s) | bdq:minimumValidDepthInMeters |
| bdq:maximumValidDepthInMeters | |
| Source Authority | bdq:minimumValidDepthInMeters default="0" |
| bdq:maximumValidDepthInMeters default="11000" | |
| Specification Last Updated | 2023-09-18 |
| Examples | [dwc:minimumDepthInMeters="1": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:minimumDepthInMeters is in range"] |
| [dwc:minimumDepthInMeters="12000": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:minimumDepthInMeters is not in range"] | |
| Source | ALA, GBIF |
| References |
|
| Example Implementations (Mechanisms) | |
| Link to Specification Source Code | |
| Notes | The Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench is the deepest known point in Earth's oceans at 10,994 meters. We have rounded up bdq:maximumValidDepthInMeters. |
Comment by Paul Morris (@chicoreus) migrated from spreadsheet: Minumum depth should also be less than 11000m, and max depth should also be greater than or equal to 0 meters, as only a single depth might be provided. @PZ, feels like likeliness rather than conformance, as it isn't a format problem, just the compliance of a range with expected reality.
Comment by Paul Morris (@chicoreus) migrated from spreadsheet: Aren't valid depth values less than zero possible, given the vertical datum? Near shore samples could be collected at a depth of -1 meter, relative to a horizontal datum of mean low tide, when collected under water at high tide. "below the local surface" leaves itself open to interpreation as relative to the water surface, or as relative to a particular horizontal datum defining the local surface. In collections made in nearshore environments, depths in reference to a defined horizontal datum as well as the actual water surface at the time of collection are both likely.
As defined in Darwin Core, dwc:minimum/maximumDepthInMeters can not be less than 0, as it is defined in reference to the local surface.
This was originally a test for both dwc:minimumdepthInMeters and dwc:maximumDepthInMeters but has been split into separate tests after raising the issue today.
Two things on this one and #187
- Is there interest to use what OBIS does with GEBCO to detect values out of range? (Example)
- What should data providers do for marine species that spend all or some of their time above the surface of the water? Seabirds, polar bears, penguins. Or species that are not always submerged such as intertidal species like crabs, mussels, limpets.
Fair point @albenson-usgs but this could be handled by the Parameters in implementations?
- What should data providers do for marine species that spend all or some of their time above the surface of the water? Seabirds, polar bears, penguins. Or species that are not always submerged such as intertidal species like crabs, mussels, limpets.
According to Darwin Core and Georeferencing Best Practices (https://docs.gbif.org/georeferencing-best-practices/1.0/en/#water-depth), depths may not be negative (i.e., above a water surface). For such situations (taxon irrelevant), the terms for minimumDistanceAboveSurface and maximumDistanceAboveSurface are recommended.
@tucotuco , I really like that image, but it contains incorrect statements. For coring cases, such as those represented on the top right and bottom right figures, the statement "distancia sobre la superficie" makes no sense. In Spanish, we would refer those as "distancia bajo la superficie (del suelo /del fondo)". On the other hand, using surface / superficie alone is ambiguous, as "superficie del suelo" and "superficie del fondo (lacustre, marino, etc.)" are both surfaces but refer to different cases.
I looked at the material in English. I think that it was unfortunate to address "Distance above Surface" rather than "Distance relative to Surface". I am a soil biologist / myriapodologist. The soil surface is my reference level. There are occurrences above the soil surface, with positive values, and occurrences under the soil surface, with negative values. If we are going to have just one term for this sort of occurrences, then the term should not be "above" but "relative to", and allow both positive and negative values. There is the same problem with elevation. When we give elevation in meters m (or any other metric) above sea level (a.s.l.), and then we write -20 m a.s.l., the statement is not semantic anymore. It is not semantically "elevation", and it is not "above" the sea level. I see elevation and depth as natural, semantic pairs, relative to a surface, with positive and negative values, respectively. Same for above the surface and under the surface.
@Archilegt As you've noticed by reviewing the English material, it is not a question of language. I understand what you say about the concept being relative to a surface, but the choice of term name and how the values are encoded is deliberate, so that one can indicate that the value IS relative to a datum, and furthermore in which direction. That much should be clear from the definitions. The problem really lies in using the word "distance", which is a positive scalar, when the concept really signifies a vector. So, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the term should be "relative to" rather than "above". The alternative would be to add two new terms to hold the direction, which seems excessive when it can be easily done with the sign of the scalar value and the documentation of the convention. The same holds for elevation (for an example see any Wikipedia entry for a feature that has an elevation, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley).
Added "of bdq:minimumValidDepthInMeters to bdq:maximumValidDepthInMeters inclusive" for consistency with other related tests
Amended ER to
INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:minimumDepthInMeters is EMPTY, or the value is not interpretable as number greater than or equal to zero; COMPLIANT if the value of dwc:minimumDepthInMeters is within the range of bdq:minimumValidDepthInMeters to bdq:maximumValidDepthInMeters inclusive; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT
Hi, I would like to double check to confirm that depths MUST not be negative under any circumstances, correct? Thanks a lot!
According to georeferencing best practices, that is correct. Depth is defined as below a (water) surface.
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"