RE: Status of resources (stable, testing etc)

Also possibly of interest are the values in several enumeration classes in
ISO 19135 (Procedures for registration):
 
 
RE_ItemStatus::
notValid         (i.e. submitted but not yet processed)
valid 
superseded     (i.e. no longer valid but replaced by another item in the
register)
retired             (i.e. no longer valid but not replaced). 
 
 
RE_Disposition::
withdrawn
accepted
notAccepted
 
 
RE_DecisionStatus::
pending
tentative
final
 
 
As you can see, this model elaborates the status values on several axes. 
 

--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 
 <mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox>
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC:  <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Any opinions expressed are personal unless otherwise indicated. 

 


  _____  

From: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Sue Ellen Wright
Sent: Thursday, 24 June 2010 18:13
To: Matthias Löbe
Cc: Bernard Vatant; Alistair Miles; Dan Brickley; Marc Wick; Dublin Core;
SKOS; Leigh Dodds; Libby Miller; Lise Rozat
Subject: Re: Status of resources (stable, testing etc)


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
<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)