TG2-VALIDATION_DAY_STANDARD

[ArthurChapman]

TestField	Value
GUID	47ff73ba-0028-4f79-9ce1-ee7008d66498
Label	VALIDATION_DAY_STANDARD
Description	Is the value of dwc:day an integer between 1 and 31 inclusive?
TestType	Validation
Darwin Core Class	dwc:Event
Information Elements ActedUpon	dwc:day
Information Elements Consulted
Expected Response	INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:day is bdq:Empty; COMPLIANT if the value of the field dwc:day is an integer between 1 and 31 inclusive; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT.
Data Quality Dimension	Conformance
Term-Actions	DAY_STANDARD
Parameter(s)
Source Authority
Specification Last Updated	2023-09-18
Examples	[dwc:day="15": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:day is in range"]
	[dwc:day="32": Response.status=RUN_HAS_RESULT, Response.result=NOT_COMPLIANT, Response.comment="dwc:day is not in range"]
Source	TDWG2018 DQIG Meeting; TG2-Gainesville
References
Example Implementations (Mechanisms)	Kurator/FilteredPush event_date_qc Library DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.596795
Link to Specification Source Code	https://github.com/FilteredPush/event_date_qc/blob/v3.0.5/src/main/java/org/filteredpush/qc/date/DwCEventDQ.java#L639
Notes	This is part of a group of similar tests (VALIDATION_DAY_INRANGE (8d787cb5-73e2-4c39-9cd1-67c7361dc02e), VALIDATION_STARTDAYOFYEAR_INRANGE (85803c7e-2a5a-42e1-b8d3-299a44cafc46), VALIDATION_ENDDAYOFYEAR_INRANGE (9a39d88c-7eee-46df-b32a-c109f9f81fb8)).

[ArthurChapman]

We have changed the description of this from "is not an unambiguous value" to "is not an integer between 1 and 31 inclusive.

[chicoreus]

Isn't this a duplicate of #125 ?

[chicoreus]

Added guid.

[chicoreus]

Field not present as a prerequisite is a significant barrier for implemenations. An implementation of an atomic test as a method which takes values as parameters e.g. validateDayNotStandard(day), is very likely to be isolated from a larger framework which understands whether or not a term is present in an input data set or not. Bringing "is present" into the test definition conflates areas of concern.

This gets back to the need for a definition of isEmpty - if we define isEmpty to include null values, empty strings, and cases where the term isn't present in the data set then we can consistently define prerequisites as being not empty.

I thus propose that we change the element of the definition "INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the field dwc:day is not present; " to "INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the field dwc:day is EMPTY;", reference a standard definition of EMPTY, and propagate this change to all other test definitions.