Talk:DESCRP

raphael (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2017 (CET): Comments received:

• More work required - definition. Also consider that this should be "online resource description", as description is far too generalized. Accepted in the interim.
• There is already a simple attribute describing a more specific application of "description", so consideration should be given to changing this to "online resource description". Given that the definition in the proposal is "detailed text description of what the online resource is/does (ISO 19115)", this makes sense.
• The alternative would be to amend the proposal to have a very generic definition for "description".

In my opinion onlineResourceDescription sounds OK. Or we can replace it with the existing attribute text and the DCEG can explain that this attribute 'should contain a detailed text description of what the online resource is/does'. Need to check what the registry already has for description.

raphael (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2017 (CET): Results of registry search for 'description':

• Complex attribute 'textual description' textualDescription
  • Definition: The complex attribute encodes the file name of a single external text file that contains the text in a defined language, which provides additional textual information that cannot be provided using other allowable attributes for the feature.
  • Domain : IHO Hydro
  • Sub-attributes: text, language
• Simple attribute 'Description of legal conditions' lg_des
  • Definition : Additional textual information which is related to the numerical description of the particular article/clause of the applicable law/regulation
  • Data Type : Text
  • Domain : Inland ENC
• Complex attribute 'update description' updateDescription
  • Definition: The textual description of changes included in an update.
  • Domain : IHO Hydro
  • Sub-attributes: text, language

(There is also the simple attribute textualDescriptionInNationalLanguage but I think that is an oversight.)

jens (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2017 (CET) I'm also in favour with onlineDescription. Making it more generic and take text may cause issues for the encoders. So, the propsal is more clear for me.
Can someone check my new Alpha Code proposal???

raphael (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2017 (CET): ONLDCR looks OK to me. We might be asked to make it ONLDSC instead. I think either is OK. But - onlineDescription or onlineResourceDescription (if '...ResourceDes...', consider whether OLRDES or OLRDSC may be appropriate)?
I'd say onlineResourceDescription and OLRDSC, but I don't think the difference is that important, any of the alternatives will do.