TG2-AMENDMENT_DCTYPE_STANDARDIZED about bdq HOT 12 OPEN

Changed the Expected response from

EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the DCMI type vocabulary is not available; INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the value of dc:type is EMPTY; AMENDED the value of dc:type if it can be unambiguously interpreted as a value in bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_AMENDED

to

EXTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the bdq:sourceAuthority is not available; INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the value of dc:type is EMPTY; AMENDED the value of dc:type if it can be unambiguously interpreted as a value in bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_AMENDED

from bdq.

Comment by John Wieczorek (@tucotuco) migrated from spreadsheet:
I believe the name of this test should be changed to DCTERMS_TYPE_STANDARDIZED for consistency.

from bdq.

I notice that the DCMI Metadata Terms are going to be specified in ISO 15836-2 (see https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15836👎ed-1:v1:en). Without paying for it, I can't see what that ISO Standard includes (https://www.iso.org/standard/71341.html) @tucotuco does that change any of the wording we have here - perhaps in the Prerequisites - rather than "A specified target source authority for dc:type" we reference ISO 15836-2 as we have done elsewhere

from bdq.

No idea where that thumbs down thing has come from in that description - can't get rid of it - sorry!

from bdq.

I would not reference the ISO standard because it is an unnecessary burden for people. The values are all available from the source at http://dublincore.org/documents/2010/10/11/dcmi-type-vocabulary/, so I would reference that.

from bdq.

I agree with @tucotuco. How do we therefore handle refs to "ISO 8601:2004(E)" as in #26, #52, #61, #66, #69 and #76?

from bdq.

OK - thanks @tucotuco . @Tasilee I don't think it changes the ISO:8601 as this is a well known standard and referenced everywhere for dates.

from bdq.

I have fixed the Reference.

from bdq.

@Tasilee, I agree with @ArthurChapman. ISO 8601 is well enough described in freely available documentation (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601).

from bdq.

Based on the naming precedent used for LICENSE (Issue #38), should the three tests for DCTYPE (#41, #91, and #103) be renamed as well?

from bdq.

I think I would be happy with that. Only problem, in the Taxonomic World "Type" has special meaning and I wonder if it might cause confusion just calling the test TYPE.

from bdq.

It shouldn't if a) we follow conventions diligently, b) we use TYPESTATUS for a typeStatus test, and c) people see what the results are telling them. ;-)

from bdq.