[tdwg-content] minimum/maximum elevation and depth - usage and priority?

[Niels Klazenga]

Historical botanical collections (at least) often have an altitudinal
range on the label. We use the minimum and maximum elevation for that,
in order to accurately reflect what is on the label. I can also imagine
that if a plant is common in a certain vegetation zone on a mountain you
may want to just report that it occurs between certain altitudes. Being
from the Netherlands I can't really speak with any authority about
altitude, so I am just suggesting a couple of possible use cases, not
ventilating an opinion on whether or not these are appropriate uses.
 
Niels
 
 
___________________________________________________________
 
Niels Klazenga
Programmer Information Technology, Biodiversity Information Officer
 
National Herbarium of Victoria, Royal Botanic Gardens
Birdwood Avenue
South Yarra, VIC 3141
Australia
Tel: (03) 9252 2346
Fax: (03) 9252 2444

e-mail: niels.klazenga at rbg.vic.gov.au

>>> "Markus Döring (GBIF)"<mdoering at gbif.org> 3/07/2012 6:41 PM >>>
Hi,

I always considered the min/max terms for elevation and depth to be
useful to express uncertainties.
But if that is the main or only use case wouldn't it be less confusing
to treat uncertainty the same way across all geospatial terms?
I would much prefer to work with elevationInMeters and
elevationUncertaintyInMeters than min max.

Markus

PS: There are actually 4 terms for location precision right now:
coordinateUncertaintyInMeters
coordinatePrecision 
pointRadiusSpatialFit
footprintSpatialFit


On 03.07.2012, at 08:57, Aaike De Wever wrote:

> Dear John,
> Dear all,
> 
> Thanks a lot for the answers so far.
> 
> I am still curious about a good example of the min/max use, at first
I
> thought the trawl sampling was a good example as well, but I guess
it
> rather applies if you sampled an area with a certain radius around
the
> provided coordinates. As most data we will encounter will come from
a
> single point/elevation/depth, I am just a little worried that it may
> puzzle data providers that they have to provide both min and max.
> 
> With best regards,
> Aaike
> 
> Hi Aaike,
> 
> These values are indeed meant to capture the range of possible
> elevation/depth or the extent of them. If there upper and lower
bounds
> are the same, then the values in the minimum and maximum should be
the
> same.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Aaike De Wever
> <aaike.dewever at naturalsciences.be> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Following on my previous email, I also had a question on the
following terms:
> * minimumElevationInMeters - maximumElevationInMeters
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/minimumElevationInMeters -
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/maximumElevationInMeters
> The lower limit of the range of elevation (altitude, usually above
sea
> level), in meters.
> 
> * minimumDepthInMeters - maximumDepthInMeters
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/minimumDepthInMeters -
> http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/maximumDepthInMeters
> The lesser/greater depth of a range of depth below the local surface,
in
> meters.
> 
> Both for elevation and depth there are two terms representing the
minimum
> and maximum, which I figure are meant to provide a range. As in most
> cases, for point data, there will be only one elevation and depth
value, I
> was wondering what is the recommended best practice for these terms.
> Should one use minimum or maximum or provide the same value for both
> terms?
> 
> Any advise on this would be appreciated!
> 
> With best regards,
> --
> Aaike De Wever
> BioFresh Science Officer
> Freshwater Laboratory, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences
> Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels
> Belgium
> tel.: +32(0)2 627 43 90
> mobile.: +32(0)486 28 05 93
> email: <aaike.dewever at naturalsciences.be>
> skype: aaikew
> AIM: aaike at mac.com
> LinkedIn: <http://be.linkedin.com/in/aaikedewever>
> BioFresh: <http://www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/> and
> <http://data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/>
> Belgian Biodiversi
ty Platform: <http://www.biodiversity.be>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20120703/fff9747c/attachment.html