Dear all heres another discussion piece
Format of terminology
There has been some healthy debate on the format of terminologies that we
use.
It has highlighted a number of key issues that need to be considered. There
are a number of questions that require some consideration from really two
angles ...
The Data Standards experts (people like DSU, Leonard) and the users/content
providers.
For instance the standard may be that we use plurals for terms but is that
acceptable to those using the terminologies. Or doesn't it matter?
There are a number of key questions that need to be considered .....
Do we use singular or plurals within terminology list?
Do we use capitals on terms in a list, a combination or neither?
Should there be a common accepted standard way of formatting terminology,
that can be clearly stated?
Should we be including the codes we use when we are coding a lookup. For
instance
SM would be the code for the description of Scheduled Monuments
Now the idea of standardisation of the codes against the descriptions allows
for SMR users to speak easily with one another and exchange information even
if they store the code in the data rather than a full description.
I would say that there are three main elements to any terminology list
1) the structure
2) the format
3) the contents
All of these need to be carefully considered and maybe we should/need to see
them as a whole.... and be very clear what lists should contain, what they
should look like and how they are structured.
What do you think?
|