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

field name consistency #24

Open
seltmann opened this issue Aug 27, 2015 · 3 comments
Open

field name consistency #24

seltmann opened this issue Aug 27, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@seltmann
Copy link

Hi folks,
I am pushing here for consistency in field names across idigbio resources. The same field is locality,dwc:locality, or dwc.locality depending on where you get the data (ridigbio, portal, or recordset data corrected download).

Thanks again!

@seltmann seltmann changed the title field name consistancy field name consistency Aug 27, 2015
@mjcollin
Copy link
Contributor

I'll look at this. We'll try to cut back but sometimes they do have different meanings eg locality is the locality from the Elastic Search index and data.dwc:locality is the locality as provided to us. That's part of the reason for the expansion.?

@seltmann
Copy link
Author

Maybe so. Since I am looking at data that is not just ours its a bit hard for me to tell.
Thanks for checking it out.
Katja

@mjcollin
Copy link
Contributor

Katja made this comment in #26 about the geopoint.lat and geopoint.lon fields which applies here too:

I think the dot syntax is understandable, although it is not apparent why it is not the syntax of dwc (decimalLatitude, decimalLongitude) like the other fields. I understand that it has to do with iDigBio data structure, but thats as far as the understanding goes (yet, perhaps that is far enough?). I also think that having them as separate columns is better than nested json. Although, those are very important, and commonly used fields.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants