-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Multiple values in stateProvince and county - change modus #24
Comments
Same as #29 |
Implemented in commit a1e2301. Updated https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-qa/wiki/Multiple-values-in-one-field. |
Reconsidering based on argument that removing multiple values inhibits discoverability for indexed fields. If reimplemented, values should be separated by " | " to follow DwC conventions. Doing so will break Kurator geography processing because it relies on "|" to separate fields. |
With further consideration, the purpose of the vocabularies is to provide standard values and highlight values that are not standard. Multiple values will never match a single standard value. Thus, I think it is best to leave multiple values out of the standard values supplied. Instead, add a comment in the error column of LookupGeography vocabulary with the pattern "[original value that is multiple] is not a single administrative unit" for each such multiple value in the original. Example for "Wales/England" in verbatimStateProvince and "Breconshire/Gloucesterhire" in verbatimCounty: "Wales/England is not a single administrative unit. Breconshire/Gloucesterhire is not a single administrative unit." To Do: Records that have multiple values in them should be located and have the error field filled in. |
Change geography resolution to NOT include more than one value in these fields.
Latest recommendation about how to populate stateProvince and county fields when there is more than one value is to leave it BLANK and to capture this in the locality field, prepend to whatever is there already.
See:
https://github.com/tdwg/dwc-qa/wiki/Multiple-values-in-one-field
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: