-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Comments
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.? |
Maybe so. Since I am looking at data that is not just ours its a bit hard for me to tell. |
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. |
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!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: