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

Consensus needed to deprecate HC terms related to "size class" #10

Closed
pzermoglio opened this issue Feb 27, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Consensus needed to deprecate HC terms related to "size class" #10

pzermoglio opened this issue Feb 27, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@pzermoglio
Copy link
Member

pzermoglio commented Feb 27, 2021

Two terms in original HC refer to size class:

  • Original HC size class (currently sizeClassScope in IPT) definition:

    Size classes included in the study for the prospective taxa (e.g., only small mammals).

    • examples provided with HC paper: medium to larger mammals for camera traps, nets mesh small enough for small arctic fish
  • Original HC size class excluded (currently excludedSizeClassScope in IPT) definition:

    Size classes excluded in the study for the prospective taxa (e.g., only small mammals).

    • examples provided with HC paper: live trapping exluded larger mammals


During first round of review we identified the following issues with this term:

  • As for the examples provided, this term is actually mixing sizes with taxonomic scope, sampling method and geographic scope.
  • A size class that was populated with "small / medium / large" is ambiguous enough that it would probably not really serve any purpose.

So we request input on whether to:

  1. deprecate this term; or
  2. turn it into a numeric field - which should probably allow for ranges - e.g., sizeInXXXXScope (in what? would this be length? volume? other? could it really be estimated? how often would this kind of info be reported to justify having a term for it?)
@tucotuco
Copy link
Member

tucotuco commented Apr 3, 2021

Since the apparent intended usage of these concepts is broad and vague, how does it serve anyone that wouldn't be served by just relegating this information to dwc:samplingProtocol or dwc:eventRemarks? I would recommend deprecating these.

@pzermoglio
Copy link
Member Author

Following group discussions from 2021-06-09, both terms are to be DEPRECATED.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants