wiki-archive/twiki/data/SDD/ResolvedTopicRevisionDataInKeyDefMandatory.txt,v

head	1.10;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.10
date	2009.11.25.03.14.36;	author GarryJolleyRogers;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.9;

1.9
date	2009.11.20.02.45.28;	author LeeBelbin;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.8;

1.8
date	2007.03.06.17.30.00;	author TWikiGuest;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.7;

1.7
date	2006.04.25.08.28.15;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.6;

1.6
date	2004.05.28.14.32.00;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.5;

1.5
date	2004.05.24.11.26.47;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	2004.05.24.08.29.19;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2004.01.14.18.53.59;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2004.01.12.18.55.00;	author BobMorris;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2004.01.12.16.40.00;	author JacobAsiedu;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.10
log
@none
@
text
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="GarryJolleyRogers" date="1259118876" format="1.1" version="1.10"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="StoredIdentificationKeys"}%
---+!! %TOPIC%

I noticed that the <nop>RevisionData/Label elements in <nop>DesignedKeyNodeType are Mandatory. 
We are in the process of transforming an application into SDD and i am not sure if we
want to include <nop>RevisionData information on all of the nodes. 

-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 12 Jan 2004


(I think you are referring to <nop>DesignedKeyDefType (= an entire key) rather than <nop>DesignedKeyNodeType.) Good point, the <nop>RevisionData information should become optional here as well (in version 0.91 this has already tentatively done). It is highly recommendable to document who authored the scientific information in the key, and when the key was digitized and updated, but it should not hinder conversion - especially so since Identification Keys are largely intended for legacy data! 

-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 14 Jan 2004 

%META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1085754625" from="SDD.RevisionDataInKeyDefMandatory" to="SDD.ResolvedTopicRevisionDataInKeyDefMandatory"}%
@


1.9
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1258685128" format="1.1" reprev="1.9" version="1.9"}%
d6 1
a6 1
We are in the process of transforming an application into BDI.SDD and i am not sure if we
@


1.8
log
@Added topic name via script
@
text
@d1 2
a4 2
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1145953695" format="1.0" version="1.7"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="StoredIdentificationKeys"}%
d6 1
a6 1
We are in the process of transforming an application into SDD and i am not sure if we
@


1.7
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
@


1.6
log
@none
@
text
@d1 13
a13 12
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1085754720" format="1.0" version="1.6"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="GuidedKeys"}%
I noticed that the <nop>RevisionData/Label elements in <nop>DesignedKeyNodeType are Mandatory. 
We are in the process of transforming an application into SDD and i am not sure if we
want to include <nop>RevisionData information on all of the nodes. 

-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 12 Jan 2004


(I think you are referring to <nop>DesignedKeyDefType (= an entire key) rather than <nop>DesignedKeyNodeType.) Good point, the <nop>RevisionData information should become optional here as well (in version 0.91 this has already tentatively done). It is highly recommendable to document who authored the scientific information in the key, and when the key was digitized and updated, but it should not hinder conversion - especially so since Identification Keys are largely intended for legacy data! 

-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 14 Jan 2004 
@


1.5
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1085398007" format="1.0" version="1.5"}%
d12 2
a13 2
-- Gregor Hagedorn - 14 Jan 2004 
%META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1085398007" from="SDD.RevisionDataAndLabelElementsInDesignedKeyDefTypeMandatory" to="SDD.RevisionDataInKeyDefMandatory"}%
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1085387359" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
d13 1
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1074106439" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
d10 1
a10 1
I think you are referring to <nop>DesignedKeyDefType (= an entire key) rather than <nop>DesignedKeyNodeType. The <nop>RevisionData information should probably become optional here as well (in version 0.91 this has already tentatively done). I think, however, that even when optional, it is highly recommendable to document who authored the scientific information in the key, and when the key was digitized and updated. 
d12 1
a12 2
-- Gregor Hagedorn - 14 Jan 2004 

@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1073933700" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
d7 2
d10 1
d12 2
a13 1
-- Main.JacobAsiedu - 12 Jan 2004
@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="JacobAsiedu" date="1073925600" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
d3 1
a3 1
I noticed that the RevisionData/Label elements in DesignedKeyNodeType are Mandatory. 
d5 1
a5 1
want to include RevisionData information on all of the nodes. 
@