<div dir="ltr">Then is there anything wrong with giving more explicit labels, such as "organismQuantity" and organismQuantityType?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Eamonn O Tuama [GBIF] <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eotuama@gbif.org" target="_blank">eotuama@gbif.org</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi John,<br>
<br>
The intent is to capture just one measurement (i.e.,<br>
abundance/density/coverage - however the dataset is reporting quantitative<br>
information on organism presence in a sampling event) - hence the proposal<br>
to place the terms quantity and quantityType in the Occurrence class as<br>
properties on an equal footing with individualCount, etc. By "buried", I<br>
was just contrasting with the more generic properties of MeasurementOrFact<br>
where you have to look up the value of measurementType to determine the<br>
entity. In contrast, our quantityType (i.e., abundanceType) is more<br>
direct. I can see that use of the word "quantity" can make quantityType<br>
seem very generic but it was the best and most neutral one we came up with<br>
to cover the various ways of reporting organism numbers in a sample.<br>
<br>
Eamonn<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> Hi Éamonn,<br>
><br>
> Your reference to "buried" makes me curious. If you create the terms<br>
> quantity and quantityType, they could appear as two "columns" in a Simple<br>
> Darwin Core record. That is, they could accommodate only one type of<br>
> measurement per record. To do other than that the terms would have to go<br>
> into an extension, where they would be exactly as "buried" as they would<br>
> if<br>
> you used measurementOrFact. Am I missing something?<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> John<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Éamonn Ó Tuama [GBIF]<br>
> <<a href="mailto:eotuama@gbif.org">eotuama@gbif.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Simon's distinction of scaled number vs discrete set could probably be<br>
>> captured using DWC MeasurementOrFact properties. However, as discussed<br>
>> previously, we felt that because measurements of<br>
>> abundance/density/coverage<br>
>> were of fundamental importance in field studies, and in the spirit of<br>
>> DwC's<br>
>> pragmatic approach, they merited their own high level term(s), rather<br>
>> than<br>
>> "burying" them under MeasurementOrFact - hence the proposal of<br>
>> "quantity"<br>
>> and "quantityType" where the term "quantity" seems the most inclusive<br>
>> label<br>
>> for what we are trying to express.<br>
>><br>
>> Following John's recommendation, we have removed the references to<br>
>> examples in the definitions and expanded the examples in the comment<br>
>> section so it is clear how they are to be used.<br>
>><br>
>> quantity<br>
>><br>
>> #Definition<br>
>> A number or enumeration value for the entity being quantified in<br>
>> quantityType.<br>
>> #Comment<br>
>> The terms quantity and quantityType are required to be used as a pair.<br>
>> The<br>
>> value of quantity is a number or enumeration, e.g., “27” for a<br>
>> quantityType “individuals”, “12.5” for a quantityType<br>
>> “%biomass”, or “r”<br>
>> for a quantityType “BraunBlanquetScale”.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> quantityType<br>
>><br>
>> #Definition<br>
>> The entity to which the number or enumeration reported in quantity<br>
>> refers.<br>
>> #Comment<br>
>> The terms quantity and quantityType are required to be used as a pair.<br>
>> The<br>
>> value of quantityType (i.e., the entity being measured) is expected to<br>
>> be<br>
>> drawn from a small controlled vocabulary with terms such as<br>
>> “Individuals”,<br>
>> “%Biomass”, “%Biovolume”, “%Species”, “%Coverage”,<br>
>> “BraunBlanquetScale”,<br>
>> “DominScale”. Examples when combined with quantity values: + on<br>
>> DominScale;<br>
>> 5 on BraunBlanquetScale; 45 for %Biomass.<br>
>><br>
>> Éamonn<br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a> [mailto:<br>
>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org</a>] On Behalf Of Markus Döring<br>
>> Sent: 15 December 2014 15:48<br>
>> To: Paul J. Morris<br>
>> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List<br>
>> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Fwd: [dwc] quantity (#12)<br>
>><br>
>> "r" is a value for very few individuals in the Braun Blanquet cover<br>
>> abundance scale which is used a lot in vegetation studies. It is like<br>
>> various others a non continous scale with discrete values. I do not<br>
>> think<br>
>> we should restrict quantity to contious numeric scales.<br>
>><br>
>> Markus<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> > Am 15.12.2014 um 15:36 schrieb Paul J. Morris <<a href="mailto:mole@morris.net">mole@morris.net</a>>:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Markus can probably answer this question:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > What would be the expected value of QuantityType for a Quantity of<br>
>> "r"?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > A comment Bob Morris occasionally makes is: "1 is greater than 2 for<br>
>> > sufficently large values of 1". If some particular quantity type has<br>
>> > a standard set of codes that represent numbers, then it might be<br>
>> > appropriate to use those standard codes as values of quantity.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > -Paul<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:48:06 +0100<br>
>> > John Wieczorek <<a href="mailto:tuco@berkeley.edu">tuco@berkeley.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Der all,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I am forwarding this comment from Simon Cox, which was submitted to<br>
>> >> the Darwin Core development site on Github.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Cheers,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> John<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
>> >> From: Simon Cox <<a href="mailto:notifications@github.com">notifications@github.com</a>><br>
>> >> Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:47 AM<br>
>> >> Subject: Re: [dwc] quantity (#12)<br>
>> >> To: tdwg/dwc <<a href="mailto:dwc@noreply.github.com">dwc@noreply.github.com</a>><br>
>> >> Cc: John Wieczorek <<a href="mailto:tuco@berkeley.edu">tuco@berkeley.edu</a>><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> 'quantity' usually implies an amount, encoded as a scaled number.<br>
>> >> In most other domains it does not include a value from an enumerated<br>
>> >> set. The latter may be called 'quality'.<br>
>> >> Both quantity and quality are subclasses of 'property'.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> —<br>
>> >> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<br>
>> >> <<a href="https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/12#issuecomment-66946784" target="_blank">https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/12#issuecomment-66946784</a>>.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > --<br>
>> > Paul J. Morris<br>
>> > Biodiversity Informatics Manager<br>
>> > Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:mole@morris.net">mole@morris.net</a> AA3SD PGP public key available<br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > tdwg-content mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>> > <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> tdwg-content mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div>