106 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
106 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.4;
|
|
access;
|
|
symbols;
|
|
locks; strict;
|
|
comment @# @;
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
date 2007.03.06.17.30.00; author TWikiGuest; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.3;
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
date 2004.05.11.13.07.32; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.2;
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
date 2004.05.03.09.16.02; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.1;
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
date 2004.04.30.12.11.00; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next ;
|
|
|
|
|
|
desc
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
log
|
|
@Added topic name via script
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@---+!! %TOPIC%
|
|
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1084280852" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
|
|
(Note: This refers to SecondaryClassifiersWithinClasses)
|
|
---
|
|
In both Coded and <nop>NaturalLanguage Description types, there is a tentatively proposed element <__OtherScope>. I suggest two things:
|
|
|
|
1. Extend this to a list as in <nop>GeographicalScope. This is trivial.
|
|
|
|
2. Add to Terminology a new kind of thing called a <nop>ScopeName. It's like a Character in that it has State values (enumerated at least, maybe range of numerical also. For example <nop>ScopeName Sex, values 'male' and 'female'. Each of the <nop><ScopeName> and the states gets a key. In a Description, keyrefs on the <nop><OtherScope> and <Scope> objects tell the non-geographic scope of this Description. Example:
|
|
|
|
* [[%ATTACHURL%/ScopeExample.xml][ScopeExample.xml]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probably there is so much in common with Characters/States that this and those are derivable from common base types.
|
|
|
|
-- Main.BobMorris - 30 Apr 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
I fully agree that the <nop>GeographicalScope problem is related and the discussion should be combined. I overlooked that, thanks for pointing it out. Geographic variation may be either a genotypic (e. g. gene frequency cline) or a phenotypic infrataxonomic variation.
|
|
|
|
Your solution is to say "we only need option b), and we want to call it <strong><nop>OtherScope</strong>". I am a bit disappointed that you don't argue at all. Why is it irrelevant to record the connection between character and classifiers (Option c)? Also, is it a good idea to have to introduce a separate dependency mechanism to handle the dependency relations between characters and classifiers? The question is not rethoric, I am uncertain, but I hope we can argue about it. These are the problems I am trying to pose with the discussion document...
|
|
|
|
On another level, I feel uncomfortable with the word "scope" in this context. To me scope means an intended restriction, which may be identical with an observed one but does not have to be. Can the native speakers comment?
|
|
|
|
For <nop>GeographicalScope was sort of ok, because in practice it will be rather a believed scope than an acutally recorded/observed scope. Scope here was intended to express that the author of the description believes this description is applicable within this range (e.g. Europe), without having necessarily compared descriptions from all European countries.
|
|
|
|
-- Gregor Hagedorn - 3. May 2004
|
|
|
|
%META:FILEATTACHMENT{name="ScopeExample.xml" attr="h" comment="Scope example" date="1083326874" path="ScopeExample.xml" size="1535" user="BobMorris" version="1.1"}%
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 2
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 3
|
|
a3 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1083575762" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
|
|
d26 2
|
|
a27 2
|
|
-- Gregor Hagedorn - 3. May 2004
|
|
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1083327060" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
|
|
d16 10
|
|
@
|