[tdwg-content] dwc: city to county

[John R. WIECZOREK]

Hi Gregor,

It is indeed practical to have ids for very specific localities, not
just higher geographic features. But I think you misunderstood me. The
localityID can apply to any level of granularity, but it should always
be the id for the whole of the Location, not some arbitrary part of
it, such as the stateProvince in one case and country in another.

In other words, if a country, stateProvince, and county were given
with a localityID, that localityID should apply to the combination of
 the three (in other words, the county, within that stateProvince
within that country). If a locality were also given, then the id
shoould be for that locality within that county within that
stateProvince within that country. The id could even apply to
individual georeferences within named places.


John

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Gregor Hagedorn<g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The extremely important thing that may be slipping through the cracks
>>>> in this discussion is that the locationID should be the identifier for
>>>> the whole content of the Location part of the record, not just one
>>>> part of it.
>>>>
>>>> In other words the following combination would be appropriate:
>>>>
>>>> locationID="rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/GeographicRegion#AGS-TF"
>>>> higherGeopgraphy="Argentina, Tierra del Fuego"
>>>> country="Argentina"
>>>> countryCode="AR"
>>>> stateProvince="Tierra del Fuego"
>>>> locality={null}
>>>>
>>>> but the following combination would not:
>>>>
>>>> locationID="rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/GeographicRegion#AGS-TF"
>>>> higherGeopgraphy="Argentina, Tierra del Fuego"
>>>> country="Argentina"
>>>> countryCode="AR"
>>>> stateProvince="Tierra del Fuego"
>>>> locality="seashore on route from city of Ushuaia to Ushuaia airport"
>
> I think this is somewhat impractical.
>
> We have realistic chances of having locationIDs only on a higher
> geographic level. But these are extremely useful when dealing with
> geographic uncertainty.
>
> It seems inappropriate to limit the use of gazetteer IDs - where
> available - for cities of villages to those records not having any
> further location details. Or do I miss something?
>
> Gregor
>