TG2-VALIDATION_IDENTIFICATIONQUALIFIER_NOTEMPTY

[Tasilee]

TestField	Value
GUID
Label	VALIDATION_IDENTIFICATIONQUALIFIER_NOTEMPTY
Description	Is there a value in dwc:identificationQualifier?
TestType	Validation
Darwin Core Class	dwciri
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:identificationQualifier
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	COMPLIANT if dwc:identificationQualifier is bdq:NotEmpty; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT
Data Quality Dimension	Completeness
Term-Actions	IDENTIFICATIONQUALIFIER_NOTEMPTY
Parameter(s)
Source Authority
Specification Last Updated	2024-01-29
Examples	[dwc:identificationQualifier="aff. agrifolia var. oxyadenia": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:identificationQualifier is bdq:NotEmpty"]
	[dwc:identificationQualifier="": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:identificationQualifier is bdq:Empty"]
Source	TG2
References
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes	This test is not recommended be implemented because of one or more of the following criteria: Unavailable vocabularies; available vocabularies are ambiguous; too difficult to code; too complex to currently implement; implementation could lead to ambiguous or inaccurate results. See Issue comments.

[chicoreus]

This feels like do not implement, identificationqualifier would almost always be expected to be empty. The absense of a value does not indicate any data quality issue for anyone. The presence of a value may indicate a data quality issue for some uses.

[chicoreus]

The provided example is a citation, not an expected value for dwc:identificationQualifier "A brief phrase or a standard term ("cf.", "aff.") to express the determiner's doubts about the dwc:Identification.", cf., aff. ?, would be plausible examples.

[ArthurChapman]

I tend to agree @chicoreus - but as to the example - a NOTEMPTY test doesn't say it is a valid value - just that it is not empty.

[tucotuco]

The term identificationQualifier has various issues and interpretations. I'm not even sure it will ultimately survive in the Darwin Core vocabulary, with something like a identificationFormula (taxonFormula in Arctos) taking it's place.

[ymgan]

I agree with Paul that this feels like do not implement but with John's reasoning that the term has various issues and interpretations (tdwg/dwc#244).

[ArthurChapman]

Agree "DO NOT IMPLEMENT" and Close?

[ArthurChapman]

Suggest, following comments that Darwin Core may not continue with this term, that we just remove all the tags and Close. - i.e. do not have either a Supplementary or DO NOT IMPLEMENT tag.

[tucotuco]

@ArthurChapman I do not agree. We should not categorize based on what may or not be. We should do so based on Darwin Core as we know it.

[chicoreus]

@tucotuco for the most part, I agree, though we do have the section in the standards document on things we observed that could shape changes to Darwin Core.

I would advocate marking this test as Do No Implement as the presence of a value in dwc:identificationQualifier tends to indicate a data quality issue (e.g. something that appears to be known to species isn't actually known to that resolution), the plausible validation would be VALIDATION_IDENTIFICATIONQUALIFIER_EMPTY, which doesn't fit the pattern of the recent set of supplemental tests (driven by thinking about potential alignment with MIDS).

[tucotuco]

I guess that in the sense that the test can't really do what it might be expected to do (flag data quality issues) for various reasons, DO NOT IMPLEMENT seems a reasonable label to apply. It also avoids making work we have actually done invisible.