TG2-VALIDATION_LICENSE_NOTEMPTY
| TestField | Value |
|---|---|
| GUID | 15f78619-811a-4c6f-997a-a4c7888ad849 |
| Label | VALIDATION_LICENSE_NOTEMPTY |
| Description | Is there a value in dcterms:license? |
| TestType | Validation |
| Darwin Core Class | Record-level |
| Information Elements ActedUpon | dcterms:license |
| Information Elements Consulted | |
| Expected Response | COMPLIANT if dcterms:license is bdq:NotEmpty; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT |
| Data Quality Dimension | Completeness |
| Term-Actions | LICENSE_NOTEMPTY |
| Parameter(s) | |
| Source Authority | |
| Specification Last Updated | 2023-09-18 |
| Examples | [dcterms:license="CC0 1.0": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dcterms:license is bdq:NotEmpty"] |
| [dcterms:license=" ": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dcterms:license is bdq:Empty"] | |
| Source | |
| References |
|
| Example Implementations (Mechanisms) | |
| Link to Specification Source Code | |
| Notes | The license at the record level might be derived from the license of the data set from which the record is retrieved |
Comment by Lee Belbin (@Tasilee) migrated from spreadsheet: Added post scoring for consistency
If this test is kept, it should probably be dc:license?
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?
This one has greater significance than #103
Correcting namespace for license in information element s/dc/dcterms/
This may require renaming the test. See the Darwin Core RDF guide for discussion of use of dcterms:license for non-literals (IRIs to resources) and xmpRights:usageTerms for literals.
Corrected dc:license to determs:license throughout
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"