Talk:RUBRIC
jens 13:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Nothing is proposed here.
We have had discussed the idea at Talk:RXNCOD at length. I prefer to provide Rubric as the attribute name allowing us to use it for NautInf as well. Using RTITLE implies that the attribute is limited to Res/Rec/Reg.
If the discussion at RXNCOD comes to a final solution the attribute details can be developed here.
DavidAcland 13:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The word "rubric" does exist in English but it is not common or widely understood. In my dictionary it means "Heading of a Chapter or section" so that feels good. The dictionary also explains "...used to indicate conduct in a church service" and that this entry was often in special lettering or in red, hence "rubric". Latin - rubrica = red. So my conclusion is that "heading" or "title" are both valid and probably better modern english words. However I favour something which would give a bit more of a general impression: perhaps "subject"? This might allow a briefer, even one word item, rather than trying to capture exactly the formal "Heading" of the law or the chapter or section, within it, which gave the reg.
[October 24 and December 31 items above copied from the RUBRIC main page - Raphael]
raphael 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC): If the value of this attribute is determined by the encoder, which would seem to be necessary if it takes a value different from the actual title of the reg, I think it would end up becoming CATRXN under another name (except that the value would be a word or phrase rather than a number).
raphael 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC): We also need to consider what, if anything, to do about multiple levels of headers (e.g., Title, Part, Sub-Part, section for the US CFR), and titles that are place names.
raphael 08:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC): No objection to changing the name - the suggested alternatives are fine.
Before finalising this attribute, it may be necesary to consider whether multiple levels of headings and sub-headings might affect it.
jens 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't say that more than one level of headings is necessary. I afraid reg structures vary too much around the globe that we will produce presumably more confusion than clarification when trying to harmonize that too much. I would rather let the structure do in the associated TXTDSC file.