wiki-archive/twiki/data/SDD/SchemaChangeLog09beta28.txt,v

head	1.8;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.8
date	2009.11.25.03.14.37;	author GarryJolleyRogers;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.7;

1.7
date	2009.11.20.02.45.30;	author LeeBelbin;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.6;

1.6
date	2007.03.06.17.30.00;	author TWikiGuest;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.5;

1.5
date	2006.05.04.11.26.30;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	2004.06.21.11.30.01;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2004.05.28.17.09.43;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2003.12.09.11.17.57;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2003.11.27.17.16.00;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.8
log
@none
@
text
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="GarryJolleyRogers" date="1259118877" format="1.1" version="1.8"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
---+!! %TOPIC%

<h2>Changes in SDD 0.9 beta 28 (to Kevin, Bob, Jacob)</h2>

<nop>GlossaryEntry: <nop>BroaderTerms split into <nop>KindOf and <nop>PartOf. <nop>AdjacentTo added. Question: do we need to have both adjacent to and connected to? See new example in the schema: "The thumb is adjacent to the index finger, connected to the palm of the hand, and part of the hand". 

<nop>RelatedTerms renamed to <nop>RelatedTo, <nop>SynonymousTerms to <nop>SynonymousTo to have better naming pattern consistency.

Changes above are not discussed with anyone, please do raise a topic if you feel so. I just try to get the basic ontology features in SDD correct. Was not really discussed in Lisbon much either, so I guess I may as well try to change what I originally put into the schema :-)

In a telephone conference Bob and I agreed to:

Characters inside <nop>CodedDescription changed to <nop>CharacterData,
Description inside <nop>NaturalLanguageDescription changed to <nop>DescriptionData

Metadata changed to Revisiondata (both element and type name). Kevin has raised this issue and we discussed it all three in a previous conference. Kevin correctly criticizes that in the case of most objects the metadata refer to the parent object, but in <nop>ProjectDefinition they aim at the project, not the project definition. Part of the problem is that the type is reused, and lacking multiple inheritance we have to use type composition. Thus the problem of different levels could not fully be resolved. But part of the problem is that Metadata is too broad and has the semantic implactions as well as structural one, that metadata describe the immediate partent. However, the container contains only a selection of metadata: for example, in the the project definition the copyright is other metadata, for a description the citation would be metadata. Bob and I find Revisiondata more intuitive (although it really is "creation and revision metadata" not the data of the revision itself....)

---

See SchemaChangeLog09beta24to27 for changes in the previous versions.

---


PS: The question of inconsistency in having collection containers on trees or not (see Wiki topic ClosedTopicStructureOfConceptTree) was not resolved.

Gregor Hagedorn - 27 Nov 2003

%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="Lisbon2003-SDD_09beta28.zip" attr="" comment="" date="1069953595" path="C:\Data\Desktop\DESCR\SDD\2003Lisbon\SchemaVersions\Lisbon2003-SDD_09beta28.zip" size="56124" user="GregorHagedorn" version="1.1"}%
@


1.7
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1258685130" format="1.1" reprev="1.7" version="1.7"}%
d5 1
a5 1
<h2>Changes in BDI.SDD 0.9 beta 28 (to Kevin, Bob, Jacob)</h2>
d11 1
a11 1
Changes above are not discussed with anyone, please do raise a topic if you feel so. I just try to get the basic ontology features in BDI.SDD correct. Was not really discussed in Lisbon much either, so I guess I may as well try to change what I originally put into the schema :-)
@


1.6
log
@Added topic name via script
@
text
@d1 2
d5 1
a5 3
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1146741990" format="1.0" version="1.5"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
<h2>Changes in SDD 0.9 beta 28 (to Kevin, Bob, Jacob)</h2>
d11 1
a11 1
Changes above are not discussed with anyone, please do raise a topic if you feel so. I just try to get the basic ontology features in SDD correct. Was not really discussed in Lisbon much either, so I guess I may as well try to change what I originally put into the schema :-)
@


1.5
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@d1 28
a28 27
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1087817401" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="SchemaDiscussionSDD09"}%
<h2>Changes in SDD 0.9 beta 28 (to Kevin, Bob, Jacob)</h2>

<nop>GlossaryEntry: <nop>BroaderTerms split into <nop>KindOf and <nop>PartOf. <nop>AdjacentTo added. Question: do we need to have both adjacent to and connected to? See new example in the schema: "The thumb is adjacent to the index finger, connected to the palm of the hand, and part of the hand". 

<nop>RelatedTerms renamed to <nop>RelatedTo, <nop>SynonymousTerms to <nop>SynonymousTo to have better naming pattern consistency.

Changes above are not discussed with anyone, please do raise a topic if you feel so. I just try to get the basic ontology features in SDD correct. Was not really discussed in Lisbon much either, so I guess I may as well try to change what I originally put into the schema :-)

In a telephone conference Bob and I agreed to:

Characters inside <nop>CodedDescription changed to <nop>CharacterData,
Description inside <nop>NaturalLanguageDescription changed to <nop>DescriptionData

Metadata changed to Revisiondata (both element and type name). Kevin has raised this issue and we discussed it all three in a previous conference. Kevin correctly criticizes that in the case of most objects the metadata refer to the parent object, but in <nop>ProjectDefinition they aim at the project, not the project definition. Part of the problem is that the type is reused, and lacking multiple inheritance we have to use type composition. Thus the problem of different levels could not fully be resolved. But part of the problem is that Metadata is too broad and has the semantic implactions as well as structural one, that metadata describe the immediate partent. However, the container contains only a selection of metadata: for example, in the the project definition the copyright is other metadata, for a description the citation would be metadata. Bob and I find Revisiondata more intuitive (although it really is "creation and revision metadata" not the data of the revision itself....)

---

See SchemaChangeLog09beta24to27 for changes in the previous versions.

---


PS: The question of inconsistency in having collection containers on trees or not (see Wiki topic ClosedTopicStructureOfConceptTree) was not resolved.

Gregor Hagedorn - 27 Nov 2003
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 2
a2 2
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1085764183" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="SchemaDiscussion"}%
@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1070968677" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
d25 1
a25 1
PS: The question of inconsistency in having collection containers on trees or not (see Wiki topic StructureAndNameOfConceptTreeElements) was not resolved.
@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1069953360" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
d18 6
@