[tdwg-content] dwc

[John R. WIECZOREK]

Thanks for these. Responses given inline...

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Ginzbarg,
Steve<sginzbar at biology.as.ua.edu> wrote:
> Here are my notes on the draft.
>
>
>
> Term Name: day
>
> Definition:           The two-digit day of the month on which the Event
> occurred.
>
> Comment:          Example: "9", "28".
>
>
>
> To be two-digit it would have to be “09” instead of “9” in the comment. I
> would recommend omitting “two-digit” from the definition.

New definition: The integer day of the month on which the Event occurred.

> Term Name: higherGeographyID
>
> Definition:           A unique identifier for the geographic region within
> with the Location occurred.
>
>
>
> within with -> within which

Fixed.

> Term Name: locality
>
> Definition:           The specific description of the place. Less specific
> geographic information can be provided in other geographic terms
> (higherGeography, continent, country, stateProvince, county, waterBody,
> island, islandGroup). This term may contain information modified from the
> the original to correct perceived errors or standardize the description.
>
>
>
> delete 2nd “the”

Fixed.

> Term Name: minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters
>
> Definition:           The lesser distance in a range of distance from the
> nearest surface in the vertical direction (positive for above, negative for
> below), in meters.
>
> Comment:          Example: 1.5 meter sediment core from the bottom of a lake
> (at depth 20m) at 300m elevation; VerbatimElevation: "300m"
> MinimumElevationInMeters: "300", MaximumElevationInMeters: "300",
> VerbatimDepth: "20m", MinumumDepthInMeters: "20", MaximumDepthInMeters:
> "20", DistanceAboveSurfaceInMetersMinimum: "0",
> DistanceAboveSurfaceInMetersMaximum: "-1.5".
>
> Those would be the distances above the surface if the core was raised to the
> surface of the water. If it was still in place the numbers would be:
> Example: 1.5 meter sediment core from the bottom of a lake (at depth 20m) at
> 300m elevation; VerbatimElevation: "300m" MinimumElevationInMeters: "300",
> MaximumElevationInMeters: "300", VerbatimDepth: "20m", MinumumDepthInMeters:
> "20", MaximumDepthInMeters: "20", DistanceAboveSurfaceInMetersMinimum:
> "-21.5", DistanceAboveSurfaceInMetersMaximum: "-20".

Explanation: The nearest surface in the example is the bottom of the
lake, therefore the example is correct.

> No reason the distance above surface should take the length of the core into
> account and the depth should not, so:
>
> Example: 1.5 meter sediment core from the bottom of a lake (at depth 20m) at
> 300m elevation; VerbatimElevation: "300m" MinimumElevationInMeters: "300",
> MaximumElevationInMeters: "300", VerbatimDepth: "20m", MinumumDepthInMeters:
> "21.5", MaximumDepthInMeters: "20", DistanceAboveSurfaceInMetersMinimum:
> "-21.5", DistanceAboveSurfaceInMetersMaximum: "-20".
>
>
>
> ditto maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters

Ditto the explanation. The example is correct.

> These terms are redundant with depth but I can’t think of a way to redefine
> either depth or above surface that would not be confusing for users, e.g.
> eliminating above surface and recording distance above surface as negative
> depth; or eliminating depth and recording depths as negative distance above
> the surface.

Given the "to the nearest surface" part of the definition, these terms
are not redundant; they were defined specifically to address the
problem of more than one offset from a vertical datum.

> Why are the verbatimLatitude and verbatimLongitude terms needed? Isn’t
> verbatimCoordinates sufficient?

Though verbatimCoordinates would be sufficient to share the data,
information allowing us to interpret the verbatim values would be
lost. Therefore the are worth keeping atomized if they exist that way
in the original.

> Term Name: coordinateUncertaintyInMeters
>
> Definition:           The upper limit of the distance (in meters) from the
> given decimalLatitude and decimalLongitude describing a circle within which
> the whole of the Location is contained. Leave the value empty if the
> uncertainty is unknown, cannot be estimated, or is not applicable (because
> there are no coordinates). Zero is not a valid value for this term.
>
> change “upper limit” to “lower limit”

The coordinateUncertaintyInMeters is the maximum error distance as
defined in the GBIF Best Practices. It is definitely the upper limit,
not the lower limit.

> Term Name: scientificName
>
> Definition:           The taxon name (with date and authorship information
> if applicable). When forming part of and Identification, this should be the
> name in lowest level taxonomic rank that can be determined. This term should
> not contain identification qualifications, which should instead be supplied
> in the IdentificationQualifier term.
>
>
>
> part of and Identification-> part of an Identification

Typo corrected, but the definition will likely have to change to be
more general than the name as used in an Identification to cover
contexts where the name is just a name.

> Steve Ginzbarg