Generated schemas following MaterialEntity ratification, plus updated…

[tucotuco]

… vocabulary for basisOfRecord.

[MattBlissett]

Sorry @tucotuco, I have accidentally pushed a fix to the generation script to master, I meant to make a PR: tdwg/dwc@abde0cc

The record level terms were missing from the taxon core definition.

[MattBlissett]

Comments from previous PR:

These XML files are now generated with this script using the term_versions.csv file as the authority for term definitions and comments. If there are desired changes to how the XML files are produced, please submit an issue citing this script.

Note that these submissions do not address these open issues:
#96
#73

If any of these changes are desired, please alert by submitting an issue so we can change the generation script.

This issue has been addressed with the new eventType field:
#63

[MattBlissett]

This now looks fine to me. I added the missing terms to the Taxon core, and moved the BoR vocabulary to the sandbox, manually updating the link to it.

[tucotuco]

OK, I was going to check the outcome of running the script. I was worried that record-level terms at the end of the list would make for an inconsistency in presentation in the IPT.

[MattBlissett]

I don't know why, but they' are at the end of the file in the current Taxon core definition: https://github.com/gbif/rs.gbif.org/blob/master/core/dwc_taxon_2022-02-02.xml#L53-L65

[tucotuco]

Hmm, they were in the version from 2015 too. I guess I will worry less. Still, I will run through the process and commit a new taxon core with a version dated today just to make sure the pipeline works correctly...

[tucotuco]

OK, that should take care of all the recent changes in generated versions of the core schema definitions.

[MattBlissett]

I think you've forgotten to commit the new ones.

[tucotuco]

I had forgotten to add them. Doh! Fixed now.

[timrobertson100]

@MattBlissett - I see you've approved these but didn't merge. Do these reflect everything we expect to now test in ipt.gbif.org and gbif-uat.org or is there a known reason to hold them back?

Thanks

[MattBlissett]

It's everything we need for UAT testing, and it's fine to merge it. (But as it's a sort of deployment, I won't do it now.)

[timrobertson100]

Thanks