About depth accuracy & elevation accuracy misinterpretation of the data?

15600
Reporter: feedback bot
Assignee: mdoering
Type: Improvement
Summary: About depth accuracy & elevation accuracy misinterpretation of the data?
Resolution: WontFix
Status: Closed
Created: 2014-05-09 14:35:48.682
Updated: 2014-05-27 13:45:48.033
Resolved: 2014-05-27 13:45:47.944
        
        
Description: It's kind of strange that depthAccuracy and elevationAccuracy are given on the GBIF page. I never published depth accuracy's and elevation accuracy's in my dataset. There is only maximumDepthInMeters. There is an interpretation performed on "my data. And new terms were invented.
http://rs.gbif.org/terms/1.0/depth --> is not resolvable for the moment. and I don't know where they originate from...

I don't understand why the DarwinCore term is not used anymore and a kind of "hmmm" interpretation was done. For me, the data became more doubtfull..

Should I, when downloading data from the portal, favour the verbatimdata?

http://www.gbif.org/occurrence/890046020/verbatim  maximumDepthInMeter 32
http://www.gbif.org/occurrence/890046020
Depth 16m +/- 16 m

Maybe it would a good idea the make more clear what has been interpreted by GBIF and what is verbatim. That you find the verbatim record is only seen at the last part of the page and will be looked over by most users.

Ciao,
DImi



*Reporter*: Dimitri Brosens
*E-mail*: [mailto:dimitri.brosens@inbo.be]]]>
    

Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Comment: We should ensure terms in the GBIF namespace http://rs.gbif.org/terms/1.0/depth do resolve
Created: 2014-05-26 16:00:34.429
Updated: 2014-05-26 16:34:12.206

Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Created: 2014-05-27 13:45:48.03
Updated: 2014-05-27 13:45:48.03
        
Agreed during scrum, it wasn't appropriate to include information about GBIF interpretation on page explaining download content.

Instead, it was agreed to create a separate page detailing GBIF interpretation. See POR-2117