Eliminate IPTC Geography terms about ac HOT 7 CLOSED

Just for clarification: Is the main difference between IPTC and DwC Geography 
terms is that IPTC has distinction between Location created and Location Shown 
and DwC does not talk about it?

AC is a vocabulary profile for media. There is a leading organization that 
defined a geographical vocabulary for media, the IPTC. This standard is the one 
that the tools to manipulate media commonly support (through xmp, which refers 
to IPTC for geography and other subject matters).

Thus, media like images ARE using these terms, whether tdwg endorses that or 
not. Forcing tdwg-followers to use DwC geography terms would mean that they 
have to duplicate some existing xmp-based metadata into DwC metadata. And the 
next time metadata are changed in a media management software, the DwC data 
will be outdated, unless someone is really watchfull...

I vote strongly against this proposal...

Vijay-  I believe that is the main difference. 

Gregor:

I keep vacillating on this.  I accept your point, but doubt that we'll see 
people use them very much, however well supported in IPTC compliant tools. A 
reasonable tool that extracts metadata from an IPTC compliant tool still has to 
meld that metadata with quite a few other AC terms. 

I am would leave them in for discussion, but not necessarily with the 
recommendation that we will eliminate them. I think distinguishing between 
Location Shown and LocatedCreated? is important, and thus I think we should 
still list Location Shown in AC, since it is not in DwC. in my mind this means 
we need to have our own term definition of LocationShown?, which means keep it 
in IPTC. ...

I noted your comment in the wiki Bob, that you think it is unlikely that people 
will use these fields (or IPTC?). LIFE really struggled with this issue - and 
needed these separate fields repeatedly. So keeping Location Shown is 
important. And although we didn't use IPTC, unless DwC provides a mapping to 
IPTC (which I didn't see), eliminating the existing IPTC terms creates a 
barrier for organizations seeking to map theirs to AC. In another note - in the 
overarching comment, your refer to Location Shown, Located Created, and to 
"Location Acquired." Where is Location Acquired defined? Based on the sentence 
before it, are you really meaning Location Created instead of Location Acquired?

"Location created and Location shown are separated in the current version of 
IPTC, and the metadata working group (MWG 2010)1 also recommends this. We will 
follow this, to support the expected future increase of automatic GPS based 
coordinate recording in recording devices. As a special case, the AC group 
recommends to change the semantics of location shown in the case of 
biodiversity specimens, where the original location may differ from the current 
location at which the specimen is held in a collection. In this case, 
LocationShown? should EXCLUSIVELY refer to the location where a specimen was 
originally collected (gathering or sampling location). Use LocationCreated? to 
express the location where the media was created (a specimen was digitized). 
All geography terms from the DarwinCore? version of 9 Dec 2009 are deemed 
included in the Core Layer. Specifically, this includes exactly those which are 
declared by DarwinCore? to be in DarwinCore? Class Location. Note that 
dwc:locality may be used, but as applied to media this term may be ambiguous as 
to whether it applies to the location depicted or the location at which the 
media was created. When disambiguating information is available, it is better 
to use the terms Location Shown and Location Acquired."

Also, the language has changed in one sentence (where I put all caps), and I 
think I disagree with it. LocationShown? should not refer "exclusively" to the 
location where a specimen was originally collected (gathering or sampling 
location.) We had also talked about the case where it could be a satellite 
image or other long-distance shot, which shows an image of a location at a 
distance from where the camera is located. I would add to the pink sentence. 
"For biodiversity specimens,....". Then add a sentence, "For habitat and other 
shots ..." We have to remember that not everyone is dealing with just 
specimens, but also habitat shots, etc...So we shouldn't limit ourselves here. 
(Also, I think this should be not in the overarching paragraph, but under the 
term's definition.)

Hope this helps.

The concensus seems to be to leave them in, so I am resolving this as WontFix