* modified is mapped to values with the wrong data type. * eventDate is mapped to values with the wrong data type. * individualCount is mapped to values with the wrong data type.
Dear,
Here, we have chosen the wrong data type on purpose. For the terms eventDate and modified, the reason is that we sometimes have very vague dates. (ex: Winter 1921) and for individualCount we would like to use "unknown". (As the field is empty in the original data) Would this create any problems during the indexing? Can we just leave it like that?
In the standard it is not specified which type the data has to be... only "best practices".
Kind regards, Dimi * * * * * * * * * * * * * D I S C L A I M E R * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen geven enkel de visie van de schrijver weer en binden het INBO onder geen enkel beding, zolang dit bericht niet bevestigd is door een geldig ondertekend document. The views expressed in this message and any annex are purely those of the writer and may not be regarded as stating an official position of INBO, as long as the message is not confirmed by a duly signed document.
Dear Dimitri,
The message displayed during mapping is just a warning, and the values with the wrong data type will still be published.
We have seen cases where invalid dates in source data read from MySQL cause publication to fail though - see this FAQ.
Please be aware, there are often verbatim terms intended to store data not conforming to the recommended data type. For example verbatimEventDate could store the vague eventDate "Winter 1921".
Best regards,
Kyle
On Sep 13, 2013, at 11:22 AM, BROSENS, Dimitri wrote:
modified is mapped to values with the wrong data type. eventDate is mapped to values with the wrong data type. individualCount is mapped to values with the wrong data type.
Dear,
Here, we have chosen the wrong data type on purpose. For the terms eventDate and modified, the reason is that we sometimes have very vague dates. (ex: Winter 1921) and for individualCount we would like to use "unknown". (As the field is empty in the original data) Would this create any problems during the indexing? Can we just leave it like that?
In the standard it is not specified which type the data has to be... only "best practices".
Kind regards, Dimi
- * * * * * * * D I S C L A I M E R * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen geven enkel de visie van de schrijver weer en binden het INBO onder geen enkel beding, zolang dit bericht niet bevestigd is door een geldig ondertekend document. The views expressed in this message and any annex are purely those of the writer and may not be regarded as stating an official position of INBO, as long as the message is not confirmed by a duly signed document. _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
I highly recommend against populating Darwin Core fields with information that is not semantically correct. Though Darwin Core does not enforce data types in its term definitions, it is expected that data publishers will make every effort to comply with them for the dat content. Not doing so will only cause confusion and lack of data usability.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Kyle Braak [GBIF] kbraak@gbif.org wrote:
Dear Dimitri,
The message displayed during mapping is just a warning, and the values with the wrong data type will still be published.
We have seen cases where invalid dates in source data read from MySQL cause publication to fail though - see this FAQ.
Please be aware, there are often verbatim terms intended to store data not conforming to the recommended data type. For example verbatimEventDate could store the vague eventDate "Winter 1921".
Best regards,
Kyle
On Sep 13, 2013, at 11:22 AM, BROSENS, Dimitri wrote:
modified is mapped to values with the wrong data type. eventDate is mapped to values with the wrong data type. individualCount is mapped to values with the wrong data type.
Dear,
Here, we have chosen the wrong data type on purpose. For the terms eventDate and modified, the reason is that we sometimes have very vague dates. (ex: Winter 1921) and for individualCount we would like to use "unknown". (As the field is empty in the original data) Would this create any problems during the indexing? Can we just leave it like that?
In the standard it is not specified which type the data has to be... only "best practices".
Kind regards, Dimi
- * * * * * * * D I S C L A I M E R * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen geven enkel de visie van de schrijver weer en binden het INBO onder geen enkel beding, zolang dit bericht niet bevestigd is door een geldig ondertekend document. The views expressed in this message and any annex are purely those of the writer and may not be regarded as stating an official position of INBO, as long as the message is not confirmed by a duly signed document. _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
participants (3)
-
BROSENS, Dimitri -
John Wieczorek -
Kyle Braak [GBIF]