- From: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:12:40 -0400
- To: Matthias Löbe <matthias.loebe@imise.uni-leipzig.de>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Alistair Miles <alimanfoo@googlemail.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Marc Wick <marc@geonames.org>, Dublin Core <DC-ARCHITECTURE@jiscmail.ac.uk>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bbc.co.uk>, Lise Rozat <lise.rozat@mondeca.com>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTilMt_MPckabusJPCpUqTl-Kc7u7107W_jbcUY-c@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Colleagues, I am sending an HTML output from the TC 37 ISOcat Metadata Registry (Data Category Registry) That shows our entry for */administrative status/*, which in many local termbases would probably appear simply as */term status/. *We have issues within the collection with distinguishing between different status values, which is why the standardized data category looks a little too complicated. The values are indeed the ones that Matthias has identified in 10241 and they are widely used throughout TC 37 standards and within the terminology management community. (Bear in mind we are talking discourse/text-oriented terminology here, which doesn't always behave the same way that SKOS terminology does, but we've got lots of cross-over points of reference.) If you look at this file in a browser and move down to the value domain that is shown at the end, you can link to any one of the data category specifications that are referenced there. You'll find that "deprecated" refers to simply any term that is not considered acceptable, whether it has always been unacceptable or it has been changed to that status at some time. You will note that this is something of a bone of contention, because some linguists don't like the term and prefer to say "not recommended" in this slot. Frankly, I don't really care what label people use as long as they document the mapping to the right data category definition. If you really want to specify that a term was once used as accepted or preferred, but it has been rejected and replaced by another term, you can use "superseded". In practice, most people simply use "preferred", "admitted", and "deprecated" (or "not recommended" if they belong to that camp). BTW, the links are mnemonic representations of non-mnemonic persistent identifiers that resolve the display you will see through our RESTful interface. If anybody is interested in referencing concepts from TC 37, we'd love to show you how this works. We're also advocates of this kind of permanent linking mechanism between web resources of all kinds, although not everybody has the simple solution of using a registered ISO domain to back up a cool URI. Check out ISOcat at http://www.isocat.org. Bye for now Sue Ellen Wright, Chair, ISOcat Data Category Registry Board 2010/4/29 Matthias Löbe <matthias.loebe@imise.uni-leipzig.de> > Hello to all, > > ISO 10241 "International terminology standards" has a scale of > acceptability ratings comprised of: "preferred", "admitted", > "deprecated", "obsolete" and "superseded". > > Well, I always read "deprecated" as outdated, obsolete, superseded, > archaic, "was once approved, but should not used furthermore". > > In contrast, I see cases where someone would like to express a status > "disapproved" as "We know it might be intuitive to raise such a > concept and we've discussed it, but for good reason we declined it and > won't discuss it again." (e.g. when a designation is not best practice > in a certain context). > > M > > -- > Matthias Löbe, Inst. for Medical Informatics (IMISE), University of Leipzig > Härtelstr. 16, D-04107 Leipzig, +49 341 97 16113, loebe@imise.uni-leipzig. > .de > > > -- Sue Ellen Wright Institute for Applied Linguistics Kent State University Kent OH 44242 USA sellenwright@gmail.com Terminology management: There is unfortunately no cure for terminology; you can only hope to manage it. (Kelly Washbourne)
Attachments
- text/html attachment: termAdminStatus.html
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 16:13:14 UTC