GarryJolleyRogers - Wed Nov 25 2009 - Version 1.7
Parent topic: SchemaDiscussion
The Documentation on the
I am assuming this documentation comes from the old schema? , since the ref attribute points to
The definition in
* I noticed that
when one has a
Currently, in SDD one has to create a
An example, borrowed from Main.BryanHeidorn prairie plants data is:
With the current SDD we coded it as follows:
<Quantitative ref="2758" debugref="plant height when mature">
<Measure type="..." value="6.0"/>
<MeasurementUnit>
<InternationalAbbreviation>dm</InternationalAbbreviation>
</MeasurementUnit>
</Quantitative>
<Quantitative ref="2758" debugref="plant height when mature">
<Measure type="..." value="3.0"/>
<MeasurementUnit>
<InternationalAbbreviation>ft</InternationalAbbreviation>
</MeasurementUnit>
</Quantitative>
While in the proposed addition we could easily code it as: <Quantitative ref="2758" debugref="plant height when mature">
<Measure type="..." value="6.0">
<MeasurementUnit>
<InternationalAbbreviation>dm</InternationalAbbreviation>
</MeasurementUnit>
</Measure>
<Measure type="..." value="3.0">
<MeasurementUnit>
<InternationalAbbreviation>ft</InternationalAbbreviation>
</MeasurementUnit>
</MeasurementUnit>
</Quantitative>
-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 08 Jul 2005
Final note: At the root of this problem lies that some quantitative characters may span several orders of magnitude, depending on taxonomic scope of a dataset. For example plant hight may be 450 µm, 8 mm, 6 cm, 1.7 m, or 85 m. it is not desirable to express this as, e. g., 0.4500 mm, 8 mm, 60 mm, 1700 mm, and 85000 mm. Furthermore in data integration projects some data may be expressed in non-scientific local units like inch or feet.
In SDD up to St. Petersburg meeting in 2005 it was possible to define measurement units both as a default at the character definition, and as "override" at character data in individual descriptions. Measurement Units where defined as first-class objects and they could, in both cases be used by reference. Measurement Units further contained a relation mechanism that provided for defining conversion factors between units. However, in an attempt to lower the usuage hurdle for SDD, both at character definition and character data level it was possible NOT to use the ref-to-MeasurementUnit object method, but instead provide a simple string for unit.
At TDWG St. Petersburg both Jacob and Kevin raised concern about this, since it is difficult to assess whether the necessary information for comparibility of quantitative characters that use measurement units at the character level is available. This problem occurs both in the simplified string and in the object reference case (in the latter no guarantee is given that the specific relation used in the data is present).
In an attempt to solve the conflicting interest of flexibility, low entry level the final SDD 1.0 now proposes a different solution: MeasurementUnit is defined only at the character definition level. However, a scaling prefix may be defined at character definition (as default) and character data level (as override). Since the prefixes used in scientific SI units are completely enumerated (and provided as a UBIF enumeration), software can guarantee that it provides all necessary conversion methods.
With this structure, the initial problem of "450 µm, 8 mm, 6 cm, 1.7 m, or 85 m" can be solved. However, it is no longer possible to use both inch and cm in a single character. They must either be converted upon or after data entry or two different characters in the same dataset may be used. Theoretically it is possible to provide a special inch-to-cm scaling prefix by extending SDD, but this is not proposed generally because it is considered normally confusing (it would lead to reports like: 3 cm, 1 inch-to-cm, where the latter measurement would have to be understood by consumers as 2.54 cm.
-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 30 Sep 2005