There are inconsistencies in the Comments text of the JSON output by FP-Akka-1.3.1-workflowstarter.jar. Related outcomes sometimes have capitalization or sentence order that makes them difficult to compare. Attached is a set of suggestions subject to others' opinions. In particular, Paul and Tianhong should check that my suggestions don't change the semantics of the terminology or the workflow.
The word "GeoLocate" and "GeoLocate service" are actual ambiguous here. In most of the cases, it refers to the GeoLocate web service, which returns a reference coordinate per web service call. "GeoLocate" also "happens" to be the name of the FP curation service the GeoRefValidator actor uses, which reads a coordinate and returns a validated coordinate.
In the comment "Original coordinates are near georeference of locality from Geolocate with certainty: 200.0", "GeoLocate" refers to the web service, not the curation service.
Last edit: Tianhong Song 2015-05-21
The word "Locality" may also be ambiguous here. In the comment "Original coordinates are near georeference of locality from Geolocate with certainty: 200.0", "locality" means a geographical position. "locality" is also short for "dwc:locality", but it's rarely used in the comment since dwc:locality is not the only parameter of a GeoLocate web service call and it's not used anywhere else in the current implementation.
There may be several distinguishable issues, illustraded in my spreadsheet, that we should discuss and settle before the webinar. These include (a) do the present ambiguities actually matter to a user; (b) should something like my suggestions, suitably edited to remove errors or ambiguities that the suggestions themselves introduced, be adopted; (c) is uniformity of the Comment for closely related outcomes (e.g. outcomes that are the logical negation of each other) important to rectify?
Changed comments produced by GeoLocate3.java in revision [r4355]