Talk:CATTXT - Revision history

Rmm at 03:15, 6 February 2017

2017-02-06T03:15:39Z

Rmm at 22:36, 3 February 2017

2017-02-03T22:36:56Z

Rmm at 02:34, 2 February 2017

2017-02-02T02:34:49Z

Jens at 09:25, 3 August 2012

2012-08-03T09:25:50Z

Rmm at 05:43, 3 August 2012

2012-08-03T05:43:40Z

New page

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 21:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC): What is the name proposed for this attribute?

Concerning the acronym, S57 uses CATCON for attribute "Category of Conveyor".

Was the name supposed to be Category of Completeness (CATCOM)?

(If you want suggestions for alternatives, all I can think of are Category of Text (CATTXT) or

Concerning allowed values: "abstract", "extract", "full text", "summary" look all right. (I will look up condensation and see if we need that too.) "completeness" is not the same kind of thing, it is a description of the attribute rather than an allowed value.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As I stated, that attribute is a proposal. I haven't considered the existing CATCON. I haven't got any objections agains renaming that to "category of text". The idea for this attribute was to indicate to the reader the nature of the content. It is likely that one can provide two different categories of text, the first one can be the "extract" the second can be the more comprehensive "full text". Depends on the particular interest one can check the extract and if necessary to have more information the full text.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC): I'm dropping "condensation". "Abstract" and "summary are not quite the same, but they are close enough in meaning that we could combine them (and reduce encoder labour in deciding whether something is an abstract or a summary). The allowed values would then become:

1: abstract or summary: A statement summarizing the important points of a text<br>
2: extract: An excerpt or excerpts from a text<br>
3: full text: The whole text

[[User:Jens|jens]] 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)<br> sounds good, I was expecting that an English expert will check the proposal. Thank you Raphael. I am at home at the moment but will try to adjust the UML and jpg tomorrow. If you agree with renaming this attribute to CATTXT I will do this tomorrow as well. Pls confirm here.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC): Agreed. I think we overlooked text written by the HO itself. Should that be coded as "full text" or by the absence of this attribute?

[[User:SNPWG|SNPWG]] 04:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)<br> moved from CATCON to CATTXT;

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 15:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I am not convinced by the bit which says "...the most important part of regulations ...". I will soften it a bit.

[[User:Rmm|raphael]] 05:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC): The label of value 2 should be "Extract".

SNPWG at 04:59, 15 June 2010

2010-06-15T04:59:23Z

SNPWG: Talk:CATCON moved to Talk:CATTXT: CATCON exists in S57. The attribute values describe different levels of text extent.

2010-06-15T04:58:37Z

Talk:CATCON moved to Talk:CATTXT: CATCON exists in S57. The attribute values describe different levels of text extent.

Rmm at 18:54, 14 June 2010

2010-06-14T18:54:43Z

Jens at 17:57, 14 June 2010

2010-06-14T17:57:30Z

Rmm at 15:48, 11 June 2010

2010-06-11T15:48:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:15, 6 February 2017
Line 32:		Line 32:
	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 03:34, 2 February 2017 (CET): Definition needed, not currently defined on main page and registry has just 'category of text'.		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 03:34, 2 February 2017 (CET): Definition needed, not currently defined on main page and registry has just 'category of text'.

−	Proposed definition: ~~The relationship between~~ textual information ~~and~~ the source material from which it is derived.	+	Proposed definition: Classification of textual information in relation to the source material from which it is derived.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 3 February 2017
Line 31:		Line 31:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 03:34, 2 February 2017 (CET): Definition needed, not currently defined on main page and registry has just 'category of text'.		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 03:34, 2 February 2017 (CET): Definition needed, not currently defined on main page and registry has just 'category of text'.
		+
		+	Proposed definition: The relationship between textual information and the source material from which it is derived.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 2 February 2017
Line 29:		Line 29:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Done.		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Done.
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 03:34, 2 February 2017 (CET): Definition needed, not currently defined on main page and registry has just 'category of text'.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:25, 3 August 2012
Line 27:		Line 27:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC): The label of value 2 should be "Extract".		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 05:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC): The label of value 2 should be "Extract".
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 09:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Done.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 15 June 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:

	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC): Agreed. I think we overlooked text written by the HO itself. Should that be coded as "full text" or by the absence of this attribute?		[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC): Agreed. I think we overlooked text written by the HO itself. Should that be coded as "full text" or by the absence of this attribute?
		+
		+	[[User:SNPWG\|SNPWG]] 04:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)<br> moved from CATCON to CATTXT;

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:58, 15 June 2010
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 14 June 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)<br> sounds good, I was expecting that an English expert will check the proposal. Thank you Raphael. I am at home at the moment but will try to adjust the UML and jpg tomorrow. If you agree with renaming this attribute to CATTXT I will do this tomorrow as well. Pls confirm here.		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)<br> sounds good, I was expecting that an English expert will check the proposal. Thank you Raphael. I am at home at the moment but will try to adjust the UML and jpg tomorrow. If you agree with renaming this attribute to CATTXT I will do this tomorrow as well. Pls confirm here.
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC): Agreed. I think we overlooked text written by the HO itself. Should that be coded as "full text" or by the absence of this attribute?

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC): I'm dropping "condensation". "Abstract" and "summary are not quite the same, but they are close enough in meaning that we could combine them (and reduce encoder labour in deciding whether something is an abstract or a summary). The allowed values would then become:
-: abstract or summary: A statement summarizing the important points of a text
+: abstract or summary: A statement summarizing the important points of a text<br>
-<br>2: extract: An excerpt or excerpts from a text
+: extract: An excerpt or excerpts from a text<br>
-<br>3: full text: The whole text
+: full text: The whole text

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 11 June 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Jens\|jens]] 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
	As I stated, that attribute is a proposal. I haven't considered the existing CATCON. I haven't got any objections agains renaming that to "category of text". The idea for this attribute was to indicate how detailed content the reader can expect. It is likely that one can provide two different categories of text, the first one can be the "extract" the second can be the more comprehensive "full text". Depends on the particular interest one can check the extract and if necessary to have more information the full text.		As I stated, that attribute is a proposal. I haven't considered the existing CATCON. I haven't got any objections agains renaming that to "category of text". The idea for this attribute was to indicate how detailed content the reader can expect. It is likely that one can provide two different categories of text, the first one can be the "extract" the second can be the more comprehensive "full text". Depends on the particular interest one can check the extract and if necessary to have more information the full text.
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC): I'm dropping "condensation". "Abstract" and "summary are not quite the same, but they are close enough in meaning that we could combine them (and reduce encoder labour in deciding whether something is an abstract or a summary). The allowed values would then become:
		+
		+	1: abstract or summary: A statement summarizing the important points of a text
		+	<br>2: extract: An excerpt or excerpts from a text
		+	<br>3: full text: The whole text