TG2-Include Ammendment Metadata in Remarks terms?

[chicoreus]

Discussion in Gainesville meeting, from a question by Paula on #43 should the assertion that the amendment altered a data record be included in the data record itself. Clearly this should be included in a data quality report (potentially wrapped in an annotation) and if there is a guarantee of supplying the data quality report with the data, then it is supplied with the data quality report.

Question to consider is whether an assertion that the data was modified in the data itself. The example case was an amendment of a georeference, projecting from another datum to WGS84, should an assertion about this datum transformation be included in the dwc:georeferenceRemarks for this occurrence?

Point raised in favor is that this provides a strong guarantee of the datum transformation being provided to downstream consumers of the amended data. Points raised in opposition are that it could be difficult to guarantee a sane order of additions to remarks if more than one ammendment is applied to a record, and that a sequence of amendments performed as a record passes through a series of aggregators may be uninterpretable, and a general position that metadata about ammendments belongs in a data quality report rather than in the amended data.

Generally agreed that this needs further discussion and consideration, and that it may affect other ammendments and these could potentially add metadata to Georeference Remarks, Taxon Remarks
Event Remarks, etc. See for example #93 #86 #57 #71

[chicoreus]

An approach to this is to assert that Amendments only propose changes, and then it becomes the responsibility of the consumer of the data quality report under Quality Control to assert when changes are made into a database of record, the Response.comment from the Amendment is available for them to add to the modified record when they accept the amendment...

This approach is probably broader than appending values into Remarks terms as part of the proposed change, as such metadata in the Response.result would duplicate the metadata found in the Response.comment, but only in a small number of cases where Remarks terms are available, and raising the concerns of order of actions noted above.

Thus most consistent path is to allow consumers of data quality reports to extract the metadata about the reasoning for a change from the Response.comment in an amendment, and add that as desired to their representation of the data.