Skip to content
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

Data Profiles - profile feedback #213

Open
M-Nicholls opened this issue Nov 30, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

Data Profiles - profile feedback #213

M-Nicholls opened this issue Nov 30, 2020 · 0 comments
Labels
21 Hazard! Activity is very complex and should be broken down into smaller activities Data Profiles Anything relating to Data Quality Profiles

Comments

@M-Nicholls
Copy link
Contributor

M-Nicholls commented Nov 30, 2020

Name quality:

  1. ATH has 190 records excluded because of scientific name quality, many are accurate names but because they are from other countries they’re not in APNI. Can ALA process a second pass through IPNI to see whether the name is there before excluding them? Or perhaps have an Exclusion category ‘collected outside Australian Territory’ Eg. https://biocache-dq-beta.ala.org.au/occurrences/8969ce6a-0a39-4a72-8624-bb4433b2952d the first record is Piriqueta racemosa (Jacq.) Sweet from the Solomon Islands and in IPNI its ID is https://www.ipni.org/n/836478-1 (urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:836478-1)

Excluded records with additional spatial quality issues:

  1. I noticed many of these are ‘Cultivated’ records, are they exclude because of that? Can cultivated records that are excluded have their own exclusion category? There may be nothing wrong with the spatial data? https://biocache-dq-beta.ala.org.au/occurrences/93505c40-b135-4f33-9aae-74298b5a9f8d
  2. It looks like records with Datum GDA94 are being excluded because ALA is converting them to WGS84. Is this a condition for exclusion? https://biocache-dq-beta.ala.org.au/occurrences/86b59c8a-4f01-4c41-8c0c-c015cce2164f
  3. In this case the ATH record doesn’t have a datum (sent to use from another institution), I guess that’s why it’s excluded? Or it was assumed to be WGS84? But the https://biocache-dq-beta.ala.org.au/occurrences/3972e402-bc49-4672-812d-9c7a067fed17

Excluded records with location uncertainty:
• This record is assumed to be WGS84, but there’s otherwise nothing wrong. So the missing datum is enough to exclude a record?: https://biocache-dq-beta.ala.org.au/occurrences/1618d997-20e7-4dc0-ac10-c43850bc1b8e
• This record is of a conservation listed taxon, excluded because the collection date (Event) is missing, but we have supplied that data, maybe it is withheld because of conservation listing? That wouldn’t be a good reason to exclude these records? Similarly a partial date could be perfectly acceptable in some cases. https://biocache-dq-beta.ala.org.au/occurrences/410282eb-7912-42a4-b726-5359d6aec04a

. If the identification date is incomplete (year 2010) but the collection date was the same year (2010-11-25) then the record is excluded because the identification date was before the collection date. I guess it’s the way incomplete dates are handled (2010-01-01).
https://biocache-dq-beta.ala.org.au/occurrences/43fbe4cb-c33f-4ccb-967d-697469107981

@acbuyan acbuyan added Data Profiles Anything relating to Data Quality Profiles 21 Hazard! Activity is very complex and should be broken down into smaller activities labels Nov 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
21 Hazard! Activity is very complex and should be broken down into smaller activities Data Profiles Anything relating to Data Quality Profiles
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants