head	1.6;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


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

1.5
date	2006.05.16.21.15.25;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.4;

1.4
date	2006.05.10.08.57.52;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2005.03.21.22.44.42;	author JenniferForman;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2004.09.13.08.35.00;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2004.08.25.11.46.52;	author GregorHagedorn;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.6
log
@Added topic name via script
@
text
@---+!! %TOPIC%

%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1147814125" format="1.1" version="1.5"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="EnumeratedValues"}%
See [[http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/pub/UBIF/EnumeratedValues/UBIF-Docu-Enumerations.html#SexStatusEnum][UBIF enumeration info]] for a tabular overview of values.

-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 25 Aug 2004
---

Walter Berendsohn proposes additional<br/>
  X = Mixed<br/>
  N = Not applicable.

I have doubts that the mixed type is appropriate for human-administrative purposes, Walter thinks he is applicable for groups.
However, it is not part of the ISO standard (see comments on the html form) intended for non-clinical, administrative purposes. I think mixed is more appropriate in the <nop>SexStatusEnum, not in <nop>BasicSexStatusEnum.

Walter writes further: Not applicable is appropriate for example for Fungi in a botanical collection - where many organisms have a sex that can be defined as male/female, but not the fungi. 

-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 13 Sept 2004
%META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1147814125" from="UBIF.SexCodeEnum" to="UBIF.SexStatusEnum"}%
@


1.5
log
@rename
@
text
@d1 2
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1147251472" format="1.1" version="1.4"}%
d3 1
a3 1
See [[http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/pub/UBIF/EnumeratedValues/UBIF-Docu-Enumerations.html#SexCodeEnum][UBIF enumeration info]] for a tabular overview of values.
d13 1
a13 1
However, it is not part of the ISO standard (see comments on the html form) intended for non-clinical, administrative purposes. I think mixed is more appropriate in the <nop>SexCodeEnum, not in <nop>BasicSexCodeEnum.
d18 1
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 3
a3 3
%META:TOPICINFO{author="JenniferForman" date="1111445082" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="EnumerationTypes"}%
See [[http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/pub/UBIF/EnumerationTypes/UBIF-Docu-Enumerations.html#SexCodeEnum][UBIF enumeration info]] for a tabular overview of values.
a17 1

@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1095064500" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
d3 16
a18 15
See [[http://efgblade.cs.umb.edu/twiki/pub/UBIF/EnumerationTypes/UBIF-Docu-Enumerations.html#SexCodeEnum][UBIF enumeration info]] for a tabular overview of values.

-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 25 Aug 2004
---

Walter Berendsohn proposes additional<br/>
  X = Mixed<br/>
  N = Not applicable.

I have doubts that the mixed type is appropriate for human-administrative purposes, Walter thinks he is applicable for groups.
However, it is not part of the ISO standard (see comments on the html form) intended for non-clinical, administrative purposes. I think mixed is more appropriate in the <nop>SexCodeEnum, not in <nop>BasicSexCodeEnum.

Walter writes further: Not applicable is appropriate for example for Fungi in a botanical collection - where many organisms have a sex that can be defined as male/female, but not the fungi. 

-- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 13 Sept 2004
@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1093434412" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
a2 1

d6 12
@