TG2-ISSUE_DATAGENERALIZATIONS_NOTEMPTY

[iDigBioBot]

TestField	Value
GUID	13d5a10e-188e-40fd-a22c-dbaa87b91df2
Label	ISSUE_DATAGENERALIZATIONS_NOTEMPTY
Description	Is there a value in dwc:dataGeneralizations?
TestType	Issue
Darwin Core Class	Record-level
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:dataGeneralizations
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	POTENTIAL_ISSUE if dwc:dataGeneralizations is bdq:NotEmpty; otherwise NOT_ISSUE
Data Quality Dimension	Resolution
Term-Actions	DATAGENERALIZATIONS_NOTEMPTY
Parameter(s)
Source Authority
Specification Last Updated	2023-09-18
Examples	[dwc:dataGeneralizations="placed on quarter degree grid": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=POTENTIAL_ISSUE, Response.comment="dwc:dataGeneralizations is bdq:NotEmpty"]
	[dwc:dataGeneralizations="": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_ISSUE, Response.comment="dwc:dataGeneralizations is bdq:Empty"]
Source	ALA
References	Chapman AD (2020) Current Best Practices for Generalizing Sensitive Species Occurrence Data. Copenhagen: GBIF Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.15468/doc-5jp4-5g10. Chapman AD and Wieczorek JR (2020) Georeferencing Best Practices. Copenhagen: GBIF Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.15468/doc-gg7h-s853
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes	This is not specific to spatial data, any value in the dwc:dataGeneralizations field will cause this flag to be raised, but the primary use case is expected to be that dwc:dataGeneralizations demonstrates obfuscated locations.

[iDigBioBot]

Comment by Paula Zermoglio (@pzermoglio) migrated from spreadsheet: Data generalizations can apply to non-geographic data, maybe the description of this test could be changed to match a more general approach, more in line with the name of the test.

[iDigBioBot]

Comment by Arthur Chapman (@ArthurChapman) migrated from spreadsheet: Agreed @PJM - but it is important to include a test for this - Definitely a Core test

[iDigBioBot]

Comment by Arthur Chapman (@ArthurChapman) migrated from spreadsheet: Perhaps this needs to be split inter several - e.g. LOCALITY_GENERALIZED, DATE_GENERALIZED, ?NAME_GENERALIZED - does that ever happen?

[iDigBioBot]

Comment by Arthur Chapman (@ArthurChapman) migrated from spreadsheet: I believe that this should be altered to a NOTIFICATION rather than a VALIDATION

[Tasilee]

I can see a case for NAME (higher taxonomy) and SPACE (lower spatial resolution), but do we have any precedent or examples for TIME? I can't think of any.

[ArthurChapman]

Maybe someone doesn't want people to know where they were on a particular day? In our data sensitivity document I don't think we considered TIME. But there may be some that don't want it known what days certain animals hatch - turtles on a particular beach, for example. Not sure, but if it is the one tests does it hurt to include?

[Tasilee]

I'm ok with leaving TIME in and I'll be interested to hear other comments.

[cgendreau]

I would keep TIME but I'm not sure about mixing the 3 under the same test. But since there is only 1 Dwc term, maybe that's enough for now.

[ArthurChapman]

In this record - the Dimension - should be "Other" and not "Space, Time, Name" - as although it does refer to data generalizations in those three "Dimensions" the actual dwc Element it refers to (dwc:dataGeneralizations falls into the "Other" category. See separate Issue I am posting shortly

[Tasilee]

My feeling is that we are using Dimension as a way of summarising the coverage of the tests, so while the term dwc:dataGeneralizations could be considered agnostic based on http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/#dataGeneralizations, we agreed to specifically allow this test to cover name, space and time. I find that a more useful strategy - and this is an issue for the Darwin Core Maintenance Group to review.

[tucotuco]

@Tasilee What needs review from the Darwin Core Maintenance Group?

[Tasilee]

@tucotuco: I was wondering if the recent acceptance of dwc:dataGeneralisations to name, time beyond space would benefit from being more explicit? I also seem to remember that we did have a few (non github) issues from Gainesville for DwC? Chasing...

[ArthurChapman]

I think you mean dwc:dataGeneralizations, Lee

[Tasilee]

yes, tired. @ArthurChapman do you remember any other issues from TG2 for Dwc?

[ArthurChapman]

Not off hand. I am sure @tucotuco made notes in Gainesville of anything relevant to DwC

[tucotuco]

Darwin Core does not have these concepts of Dimension, nor is dwc:dataGeneralizations limited to those three data quality concepts. I see the data quality standard as a layer applied on top of Darwin Core (or other standards where the terms are equivalent), and that Darwin Core itself must remain defined independently of that layer.

[Tasilee]

As per meeting 21st March, NOTIFICATIONs will now be ISSUEs.

[Tasilee]

After zoom meeting, changed

POTENTIAL_ISSUE if dwc:dataGeneralizations is not EMPTY; otherwise NO_ISSUE

to

POTENTIAL_ISSUE if dwc:dataGeneralizations is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_ISSUE

[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:

• uses POTENTIAL_ISSUE, but the text in standards document is POSSIBLE_ISSUE

[ArthurChapman]

Thanks @ymgan POTENTIAL_ISSUE is correct (see Vocabulary Document at #152 Document needs fixing