[tdwg-content] Fwd: [dwc] quantity (#12)

Wed Dec 17 16:22:21 CET 2014

Then is there anything wrong with giving more explicit labels, such as
"organismQuantity" and organismQuantityType?

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Eamonn O Tuama [GBIF] <eotuama at gbif.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> The intent is to capture just one measurement (i.e.,
> abundance/density/coverage - however the dataset is reporting quantitative
> information on organism presence in a sampling event) - hence the proposal
> to place the terms quantity and quantityType in the Occurrence class as
> properties on an equal footing with individualCount, etc. By "buried", I
> was just contrasting with the more generic properties of MeasurementOrFact
> where you have to look up the value of measurementType to determine the
> entity. In contrast, our quantityType (i.e., abundanceType) is more
> direct. I can see that use of the word "quantity" can make quantityType
> seem very generic but it was the best and most neutral one we came up with
> to cover the various ways of reporting organism numbers in a sample.
>
> Eamonn
>
> > Hi Éamonn,
> >
> > Your reference to "buried" makes me curious. If you create the terms
> > quantity and quantityType, they could appear as two "columns" in a Simple
> > Darwin Core record. That is, they could accommodate only one type of
> > measurement per record. To do other than that the terms would have to go
> > into an extension, where they would be exactly as "buried" as they would
> > if
> > you used measurementOrFact. Am I missing something?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Éamonn Ó Tuama [GBIF]
> > <eotuama at gbif.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Simon's distinction of scaled number vs discrete set could probably be
> >> captured using DWC MeasurementOrFact properties. However, as discussed
> >> previously, we felt that because measurements of
> >> abundance/density/coverage
> >> were of fundamental importance in field studies, and in the spirit of
> >> DwC's
> >> pragmatic approach, they merited their own high level term(s), rather
> >> than
> >> "burying" them under MeasurementOrFact - hence the proposal of
> >> "quantity"
> >> and "quantityType" where the term "quantity" seems the most inclusive
> >> label
> >> for what we are trying to express.
> >>
> >> Following John's recommendation, we have removed the references to
> >> examples in the definitions and expanded the examples in the comment
> >> section so it is clear how they are to be used.
> >>
> >> quantity
> >>
> >> #Definition
> >> A number or enumeration value for the entity being quantified in
> >> quantityType.
> >> #Comment
> >> The terms quantity and quantityType are required to be used as a pair.
> >> The
> >> value of quantity is a number or enumeration, e.g.,  “27” for a
> >> quantityType “individuals”, “12.5” for a quantityType
> >> “%biomass”, or “r”
> >> for a quantityType “BraunBlanquetScale”.
> >>
> >>
> >> quantityType
> >>
> >> #Definition
> >> The entity to which the number or enumeration reported in quantity
> >> refers.
> >> #Comment
> >> The terms quantity and quantityType are required to be used as a pair.
> >> The
> >> value of quantityType (i.e., the entity being measured) is expected to
> >> be
> >> drawn from a small controlled vocabulary with terms such as
> >> “Individuals”,
> >> “%Biomass”, “%Biovolume”, “%Species”, “%Coverage”,
> >> “BraunBlanquetScale”,
> >> “DominScale”. Examples when combined with quantity values: + on
> >> DominScale;
> >> 5 on BraunBlanquetScale; 45 for %Biomass.
> >>
> >> Éamonn
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:
> >> tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Markus Döring
> >> Sent: 15 December 2014 15:48
> >> To: Paul J. Morris
> >> Cc: TDWG Content Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Fwd: [dwc] quantity (#12)
> >>
> >> "r" is a value for very few individuals in the Braun Blanquet cover
> >> abundance scale which is used a lot in vegetation studies. It is like
> >> various others a non continous scale with discrete values. I do not
> >> think
> >> we should restrict quantity to contious numeric scales.
> >>
> >> Markus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Am 15.12.2014 um 15:36 schrieb Paul J. Morris <mole at morris.net>:
> >> >
> >> > Markus can probably answer this question:
> >> >
> >> > What would be the expected value of QuantityType for a Quantity of
> >> "r"?
> >> >
> >> > A comment Bob Morris occasionally makes is: "1 is greater than 2 for
> >> > sufficently large values of 1".  If some particular quantity type has
> >> > a standard set of codes that represent numbers, then it might be
> >> > appropriate to use those standard codes as values of quantity.
> >> >
> >> > -Paul
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:48:06 +0100
> >> > John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Der all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I am forwarding this comment from Simon Cox, which was submitted to
> >> >> the Darwin Core development site on Github.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >>
> >> >> John
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> >> From: Simon Cox <notifications at github.com>
> >> >> Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:47 AM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [dwc] quantity (#12)
> >> >> To: tdwg/dwc <dwc at noreply.github.com>
> >> >> Cc: John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 'quantity' usually implies an amount, encoded as a scaled number.
> >> >> In most other domains it does not include a value from an enumerated
> >> >> set. The latter may be called 'quality'.
> >> >> Both quantity and quality are subclasses of 'property'.
> >> >>
> >> >> —
> >> >> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> >> >> <https://github.com/tdwg/dwc/issues/12#issuecomment-66946784>.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Paul J. Morris
> >> > Biodiversity Informatics Manager
> >> > Harvard University Herbaria/Museum of Comparative Zoölogy
> >> > mole at morris.net  AA3SD  PGP public key available
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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/20141217/cd976e94/attachment.html 