TG2-VALIDATION_GEOGRAPHY_STANDARD

[chicoreus]

TestField	Value
GUID	9d6f53c0-775b-4579-b7a4-5e5f093aa512
Label	VALIDATION_GEOGRAPHY_STANDARD
Description	Can the individual values of the terms dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality be unambiguously resolved from bdq:sourceAuthority?
TestType	Validation
Darwin Core Class	Location
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:continent
	dwc:country
	dwc:countryCode
	dwc:stateProvince
	dwc:county
	dwc:municipality
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the bdq:sourceAuthority is not available; INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if all of the terms dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality are bdq:Empty; COMPLIANT if the individual values of dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality are unambiguously resolved in the bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT
Data Quality Dimension	Conformance
Term-Actions	GEOGRAPHY_STANDARD
Parameter(s)	bdq:sourceAuthority
Source Authority	bdq:sourceAuthority default = "The Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN)" [https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/tgn/index.html]
Specification Last Updated	2023-09-22
Examples	[dwc:continent="Oceania", dwc:country="Australia", dwc:stateProvince="Victoria": Response.status=COMPLIANT, response.result="", Response.comment="The geographic terms are in agreement with the source authority"]
	[dwc:continent="", dwc:country="Australia", dwc:stateProvince="Virgina": Response.status=NOT_COMPLIANT, response.result="", Response.comment="The geographic terms are ambiguous in the source authority"]
Source	VertNet, Kurator
References	Chapman, AD and Wieczorek, JR (2020). Georeferencing Best Practices. Copenhagen: GBIF Secretariat (https://doi.org/10.15468/doc-gg7h-s853) VertNet (2019). DwCVocabs (https://github.com/VertNet/DwCVocabs/blob/master/vocabs/Geography.csv) Getty Reseach Institute (2017). Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names Online (https://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/tgn/index.html)
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)	Kurator
Link to Specification Source Code	https://github.com/VertNet/toolkit, https://github.com/kurator-org/kurator-validation/blob/master/packages/kurator_dwca/workflows/dwca_geography_assessor.yaml
Notes	This test only tests if the values of the Information Elements values can be found in the Source Authority. Test #95 tests the combination of these values. Only the administrative terms are considered. Terms for waterBody and islands are not included in this test.

[chicoreus]

The discussion in #118 suggests the need for this validation. Added here for discussion.

[ArthurChapman]

@chicoreus - does this mean that all higher geography terms need to be unambiguously resolvable. What about if you only have down to country and nothing lower?

[ArthurChapman]

@chicoreus question has not been answered. Is it COMPLIANT if some can be unambiguously resolved - or does all have to be unambiguously resolvable

[tucotuco]

I feel strongly that this test must be that the entire higher geography combination is unambiguous, as it is stated. It is not really functional to do a piece-wise validation of the geographic terms and posit compliance. If you want to go the route of checking to, for example, country, I believe this test would have to change to add another parameter to say how many levels down you want to be checked. Even so, the test would not check continent, then country, then stateProvince independently - it is only the combination that makes sense to be compliant.

[Tasilee]

@tucotuco - Are you are saying that the test would return NOT_COMPLIANT if the not EMPTY terms among dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county and dwc:municipality resulted in ambiguity? If so, it raises an interesting point that the ambiguity needs to be reported?

[tucotuco]

The test isn't about ambiguity, it is about being non-standard against a given authority. This is a NOTSTANDARD test, not a INCONSISTENT test. In NOTSTANDARD tests we don't say why it is not standard. Indeed, we don't even make that the job of consistency tests (e.g., #67) except to test for something very specific (e.g., #62).

[Tasilee]

@tucotuco ok. tare

[ArthurChapman]

I just noticed that the wording of this test is virtually identical to #95 - they appear duplicates!

#139
COMPLIANT if the combination of dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality can be unambiguously resolved from the bdq:sourceAuthority;

#95
COMPLIANT if the combination of values of administrative geographic terms (dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality) can be unambiguously resolved by the bdq:sourceAuthority;

[Tasilee]

I was going to use "administrative geographic terms" in the Description of one of these tests and decided to just be explicit, as we have opted for elsewhere.

[ArthurChapman]

But are the tests the same, and can one be deleted?

[Tasilee]

I think you are right. They are close enough.

[ArthurChapman]

@tucotuco Can you check those two tests and see if there is any reason we have two tests (#139 and #95)

[Tasilee]

#139: COMPLIANT if the combination of [values] of dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality can be unambiguously resolved from the bdq:sourceAuthority;

#95: COMPLIANT if the combination of values of dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality can be unambiguously resolved by the bdq:sourceAuthority

So....there are equal in intent. I suggest we CLOSE #95 and I'll edit this one to add "values of".

Votes please?

[tucotuco]

Sorry folks. These two tests are not supposed to be the same. This one is not about ambiguity, while #95 is. The geography can be not standard and unambiguous.

I could see having only one of these two tests, but I think #95 is actually the useful one in that case.

[Tasilee]

Thanks @tucotuco. Your call. I guess the questions are then

• Are the potential combinations of STANDARD/NOT_STANDARD | AMBIGUOUS/UNAMBIGUOUS informative?
• If they are, then the Expected Responses need to more clearly differentiate the tests.
• If not (which you simply by suggesting that TG2-VALIDATION_GEOGRAPHY_STANDARD #139 may be dropped), fine.

[chicoreus]

The examples seem informative. #95 dwc:stateProvince="WA" Is standard, but ambiguous, other terms would be needed to disambiguate which WA. #139 dwc:continent="Oceania", dwc:country="Australia", dwc:stateProvince="Virginia" is not standard, there is no Virginia within Oceania:Australia, no such higher geography exists, while at least two WA higher geographies exist.

The whiteboard diagram from Ganesville on #95 seems to suggest that #95 was being thought of as encompasing both of these at that time.

[tucotuco]

Yes, I am having a hard time deciding if #139 is necessary. #95 is the useful one in my opinion.

…

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:55 PM Paul J. Morris ***@***.***> wrote: The examples seem informative. #95 <#95> dwc:stateProvince="WA" Is standard, but ambiguous, other terms would be needed to disambiguate which WA. #139 <#139> dwc:continent="Oceania", dwc:country="Australia", dwc:stateProvince="Virginia" is not standard, there is no Virginia within Oceania:Australia, no such higher geography exists, while at least two WA higher geographies exist. The whiteboard diagram from Ganesville on #95 <#95> seems to suggest that #95 <#95> was being thought of as encompasing both of these at that time. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#139 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ72YT7P3RHQ3W2SJAAXDVCNU3TANCNFSM4EPT7YJQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[ArthurChapman]

Is there a way we can reword one of them to cover both cases. It is obvious that over time the two tests that were distinct at one time have converged over time. As @chicoreus suggests, the examples are helpful.

[tucotuco]

I think they are very different and an attempt should not be made to merge them. The fact that the Expected Responses look the same is an accident. I think the correct Expected Response for this step should be something more akin to:

EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the bdq:sourceAuthority is not available; INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if all of the terms dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality are EMPTY; COMPLIANT if each of the NOT_EMPTY values of dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality is a STANDARD value for that term and is consistent with all of the other values in the listed fields according to the bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT

There are problems inherent in what standard means here that make me think this test is not as useful as #95.

I think I am convincing myself to drop this one.

[Tasilee]

We need to make a decision on #139 and #95. Hold till the next Zoom or 'bite (bight? :) the bullet'?

[tucotuco]

I remain fine with omitting #139.

[Tasilee]

The thumbs up suggests that #139 does not add significantly to #95 but for the deletion of a test, I'd value @chicoreus's 'vote'.

[ArthurChapman]

Because of the confusion between this test and #95, I suggest rewording as

INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if all of the terms dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality are EMPTY; COMPLIANT if the values of dwc:continent, dwc:country, dwc:countryCode, dwc:stateProvince, dwc:county, dwc:municipality can be individually resolved from the bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT

[ArthurChapman]

There has been discussion between Issues #95 and #139 - the wording converged over time such as the two tests appeared to be testing for the same thing. Discussion on ZOOM has resulted in separating the two.

#139 is testing individual terms for validity at that level - it looks at only one level in the hierarchy at a time and checks the validity of what is there at the level. Hence the suggested change in wording above.
#95 is testing for inconsistencies between levels in the hierarchy - for example Western Australia (WA) as a State, and USA as a country - i.e. one is wrong and thus ambiguous.

[Tasilee]

The zoom discussion with @ArthurChapman, @tucotuco and @chicoreus today concluded that tests #95, #139 and #118 were going to be very difficult to implement properly given the lack of a consistent geographic terms hierarchy by comparison with the taxonomic terms. Note the issues arising from the table above for example. We will therefore remove these tests from CORE.

In their place, we will

1. Add a test for dwc:stateProvice found to complement TG2-VALIDATION_COUNTRY_FOUND #21 (which we will rename)
2. Add a test for dwc:country dwc:stateProvince combo exist at least once in the bdq:sourceAuthority (country-state/province consistent)
3. Add a test for dwc:country dwc:stateProvince combo exists exactly once in the bdq:sourceAuthority ((country-state/province unambiguous)

[ArthurChapman]

Splitting Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted".

Changed "Field" to "TestField", "Output Type" to "TestType", deleted "Warning Type" and added TestField "Specification Last Updated"

[Tasilee]

Specifications updated to align with the current template