Difference between revisions of "Talk:CATTXT"
| 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 | ||
Revision as of 15:48, 11 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.
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
2: extract: An excerpt or excerpts from a text
3: full text: The whole text