John Wieczorek

I think https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/EstablishmentMeans/concepts is OK as a source authority because it actually has an API, as long as it is understood that the actually vocabulary is maintained at https://dwc.tdwg.org/em/ and...

Source Authority should be bdq:sourceAuthority default = "Establishment Means Controlled Vocabulary List of Terms" {[https://dwc.tdwg.org/em/]} {GBIF vocabulary API [https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/EstablishmentMeans/concepts]}

The Notes are in error. "Unknown" is not a valid value for the vocabulary. The corresponding standard controlled value "uncertain " and the preferred label "uncertain (unknown, cryptogenic)". See https://dwc.tdwg.org/em/.

I think https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/EstablishmentMeans/concepts is OK as a source authority because it actually has an API, as long as it is understood that the actually vocabulary is maintained at https://dwc.tdwg.org/em/ and...

Source Authority should be bdq:sourceAuthority default = "Establishment Means Controlled Vocabulary List of Terms" {[https://dwc.tdwg.org/em/]} {GBIF vocabulary API [https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/EstablishmentMeans/concepts]}

Since a ratified controlled vocabulary actually exists, we should urge GBIF to amend their implementation of the vocabulary.

This was correct before the change. Darwin Core has the formal recommended vocabulary.

> Updated Source Authority to reflect new GBIF vocabulary. Does this imply this test could be CORE or Supplementary? I don't believe that where the vocabulary comes from is a...

That is correct, the term dwc:materialSampleType is a fabrication.

Yes, there is an open issue for it, which was relegated to the Material Sample Task Group. On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 4:32 PM Wouter Addink ***@***.***> wrote: >...