-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
TG2-VALIDATION_OCCURRENCESTATUS_NOTEMPTY #117
Comments
I think it was one of those that is empty 90% of the time so would create millions of flags. Thinking back - wasn't there some problem with how people were using occurrenceStatus (i.e. to be more than just Present/Absent? One, I guess, assumes if it is blank, then it is present. Because of this, I think we agreed that it shouldn't be CORE |
This relates to an existing ALA test of the type we would call NOTIFICATION that says "occurrence status is empty so we are assuming "present". This still seems like a wise thing to me. Yes, it will be flagged a lot, but in this case (as we discussed in Gainesville) - sometimes we need to make a point :) "Please PUT THE OCCURRENCE STATUS IN!" |
I believe this is a VALIDATION not a NOTIFICATION. However, because we have #75 I believe we can delete this one altogether as #75 states that if it is EMPTY then replace with "Present". In spite of @Tasilee's argument above - I think just having an Annotation that says something like "basisOfRecord was EMPTY and it has thus been assumed to be Present" I don't believe (especially in interests of keeping it Simple and the number of annotations as few as possible) I think this is redundant and thus NOT CORE |
Replied in last email. We need it to justify the amendment
…On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:07 AM Arthur Chapman ***@***.***> wrote:
I believe this is a VALIDATION not a NOTIFICATION. However, because we
have #75 <#75> I believe we can delete
this one altogether as #75 <#75> states
that if it is EMPTY then replace with "Present". In spite of @Tasilee
<https://github.com/Tasilee>'s argument above - I think just having an
Annotation that says something like "basisOfRecord was EMPTY and it has
thus been assumed to be Present" I don't believe (especially in interests
of keeping it Simple and the number of annotations as few as possible) I
think this is redundant
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#117 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGWRXjV2W-yklKt4UrSXC5rhzKZIIV2fks5uTKC8gaJpZM4Rhrya>
.
--
[image: untitled]
*Lee Belbin*
Science Advisor
Atlas of Living Australia
National Research Collections Australia, National Collections & Marine
Infrastructure, CSIRO *|* Clunies Ross Street, Acton ACT 2601 *|*
GPO Box 1700, Canberra ACT 2601
Phone: +61 0419 374 133 *| *lee.belbin@csiro.au <leebelbin@gmail.com> *|*
www.ala.org.au *|* http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Collections
|
…nimal unit tests for those tests. Implementations for tdwg/bdq#94 tdwg/bdq#58 tdwg/bdq#103 tdwg/bdq#99 tdwg/bdq#47 and tdwg/bdq#117 added utility class with method to test if empty. Changing implemented methods to static.
Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted". Also changed "Field" to "TestField", "Output Type" to "TestType" and updated "Specification Last Updated" |
…dq#117 and for Default invocation for tdwg/bdq#285.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: