Thanks for the clarification. So indeed I am trying something locationID is not meant for. I am thus not proposing to change LocationID.
However, I believe what I am describing is a very valid use case.
It seems to me to be a gap in Darwin Core in principal to be unable to transmit Gazetteer IDs for the kind of object that are present in Gazetteers (which to all my experience, never provider IDs for the ditch 10 m away from the street intersection (which may have an ID).
I believe in most cases it is *interesting* (for re-finding purposes) to have a free-form very detailed location description, but *sufficient* for all analysis purposes to have a higher-level location amendable to analysis.
It seems to me undesirable to be able to analyse records where the collectors did not care to add detailed information (such as in a collection only citing the city name) and unable to analyse any records where in addition to the same city name a careful collector also provided additional information. However, according to your definitions, this is presently the situation with DWC.
Is there any way to make Darwin Core able to transmit such information? Iif LocationID is not the correct property - which property is the correct one?
---------
Separately, and referring back to the start of the question: do you plan to change DWC so that it is possible to transmit the name of cities or villages.
Or could we even accept the IPTC Extension 1.1 as a relevant standard and accept its definitions (I previously wrongly quoted a version 2, I meant the 1.1. Also note that these fields are not new, they have been moved from core to extension.
The link to the specs is here:
http://www.iptc.org/std/photometadata/specification/IPTC-PhotoMetadata%28200...
It defines for the {location detail} class the following properties (available as RDF vocabularies)
World Region Country ISO-Code Country Name Province or State City Location Details Sublocation
Gregor