Talk:DESCRP - Revision history

Rmm at 21:37, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T21:37:18Z

Rmm at 21:27, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T21:27:07Z

Jens at 06:29, 23 January 2017

2017-01-23T06:29:09Z

Jens at 06:27, 23 January 2017

2017-01-23T06:27:01Z

Rmm at 15:23, 20 January 2017

2017-01-20T15:23:04Z

Rmm: Created page with "--~~~~: Comments received: *More work required - definition. Also consider that this should be "online resource description", as description is far too generalized. Accepted i..."

2017-01-19T08:02:34Z

Created page with "--~~~~: Comments received: *More work required - definition. Also consider that this should be "online resource description", as description is far too generalized. Accepted i..."

New page

--[[User:Rmm|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm|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''.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 1 February 2017
Line 24:		Line 24:
	[[User:Jens\|jens]] ([[User talk: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.<br> Can someone check my new Alpha Code proposal???		[[User:Jens\|jens]] ([[User talk: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.<br> Can someone check my new Alpha Code proposal???

−	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 22:27, 1 February 2017 (CET): ONLDCR looks OK to me. We might be asked to make it ONLDSC. I think either is OK.	+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|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)?
		+	<br>I'd say onlineResourceDescription and OLRDSC, but I don't think the difference is that important, any of the alternatives will do.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 1 February 2017
Line 23:		Line 23:

	[[User:Jens\|jens]] ([[User talk: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.<br> Can someone check my new Alpha Code proposal???		[[User:Jens\|jens]] ([[User talk: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.<br> Can someone check my new Alpha Code proposal???
		+
		+	[[User:Rmm\|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm\|talk]]) 22:27, 1 February 2017 (CET): ONLDCR looks OK to me. We might be asked to make it ONLDSC. I think either is OK.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:29, 23 January 2017
Line 22:		Line 22:
	(There is also the simple attribute [http://registry.iho.int/feature/view.do?recordID=2003120&page=1&type=3&status=2 textualDescriptionInNationalLanguage] but I think that is an oversight.)		(There is also the simple attribute [http://registry.iho.int/feature/view.do?recordID=2003120&page=1&type=3&status=2 textualDescriptionInNationalLanguage] but I think that is an oversight.)

−	[[User:Jens\|jens]] ([[User talk: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.	+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] ([[User talk: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.<br> Can someone check my new Alpha Code proposal???

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, 23 January 2017
Line 21:		Line 21:

	(There is also the simple attribute [http://registry.iho.int/feature/view.do?recordID=2003120&page=1&type=3&status=2 textualDescriptionInNationalLanguage] but I think that is an oversight.)		(There is also the simple attribute [http://registry.iho.int/feature/view.do?recordID=2003120&page=1&type=3&status=2 textualDescriptionInNationalLanguage] but I think that is an oversight.)
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] ([[User talk: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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
---[[User:Rmm|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm|talk]]) 09:02, 19 January 2017 (CET): Comments received:
+[[User:Rmm|raphael]] ([[User talk:Rmm|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.
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 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''.