[tdwg-content] dwc: city to county

[Gregor Hagedorn]

>>> 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