TG2-AMENDMENT_KINGDOM_STANDARDIZED

[iDigBioBot]

TestField	Value
GUID	bd96600d-570f-44c9-a117-82e7f34e95c7
Label	AMENDMENT_KINGDOM_STANDARDIZED
Description	Can the value for kingdom be standardized against the source authority?
TestType	Amendment
Darwin Core Class	Taxon
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:kingdom
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the bdq:sourceAuthority is not available; INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:kingdom is bdq:Empty; AMENDED dwc:kingdom if it can be been unambiguously interpreted in the bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_CHANGED.
Data Quality Dimension	Conformance
Term-Actions	KINGDOM_STANDARDIZED
Parameter(s)	bdq:sourceAuthority
Source Authority	bdq:sourceAuthority default = "GBIF Backbone Taxonomy" {[https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei]} {API endpoint [https://api.gbif.org/v1/species?datasetKey=d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c&name=]}
Specification Last Updated	2024-09-18
Examples	[dwc:family="Animals": Response.status=AMENDED, Response.result=dwc:order="Animalia", Response.comment="Input field contains interpretable value for kingdom"]
	[dwc:kingdom="X": Response.status=NOT_AMENDED, Response.result="", Response.comment="Value for kingdom not found in source authority"]
Source	iDigBio
References
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)
Link to Specification Source Code
Notes	For reference, possible values of dwc:kingdom can be found at https://registry.gbif.org/vocabulary/Kingdom/concepts.

[iDigBioBot]

Comment by Paul Morris (@chicoreus) migrated from spreadsheet:
Specification unclear. Is this conforming the higher classification to an aggregator's preferred classification. Replace the {higher taxon}_REPLACED tests with a pair HIGHER_CLASSIFICATION_IN_VOCABULARY, HIGHER_CLASSIFICATION_CONFORMED_TO_VOCABULARY.

[godfoder]

We are recommending that implementers do not implement individual amendments for each rank, preferring instead that amendments to taxonomic terms be made for the entire higher taxonomy at once, as in #57 and #70 .

[Tasilee]

Updated parameters to align with current template

[Tasilee]

Standardized reference to "EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the bdq:sourceAuthority is not available" in Expected Response.

[Tasilee]

Changed Source Authority from

bdq:sourceAuthority default = "GBIF Backbone Taxonomy" {[https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei]} {API endpoint [https://api.gbif.org/v1/species?datasetKey=d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c&name=]}

to

bdq:sourceAuthority default = "GBIF Kingdom Vocabulary" [https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/Kingdom]} {"dwc:kingdom vocabulary API" [https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/Kingdom/concepts]}

[chicoreus]

I disagree. Like #81 this needs to be reverted to the default sourceAuthority consistent with the rest of the higher taxonomy terms. Doing otherwise adds substantial complexity and potential problems for alignment between two different controlled vocabularies, as well as increased complexity for implementation.

The source authority should be:

bdq:sourceAuthority default = "GBIF Backbone Taxonomy" {[https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei]} {API endpoint [https://api.gbif.org/v1/species?datasetKey=d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c&name=]}

[Tasilee]

Changed Source Authority from

bdq:sourceAuthority default = "GBIF Kingdom Vocabulary" [https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/Kingdom]} {"dwc:kingdom vocabulary API" [https://api.gbif.org/v1/vocabularies/Kingdom/concepts]}

to

bdq:sourceAuthority default = "GBIF Backbone Taxonomy" {[https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei]} {API endpoint [https://api.gbif.org/v1/species?datasetKey=d7dddbf4-2cf0-4f39-9b2a-bb099caae36c&name=]}