Difference between revisions of "Talk:CATTXT"
(New page: ~~~~: 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 (CA...) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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. | 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 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. | ||
Revision as of 12:14, 10 June 2010
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.
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.