It would be worthwhile keeping track of any lists that have been
received but not accepted. However you might want to steer away from the
term 'Rejected' since some people see this as too harsh perhaps 'Not
Accepted' might be less confrontational and not so likely to upset
people. This comes from experience of using the R word for thesaurus
terms and getting thoroughly browbeaten by upset rejectees.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Edmund [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 July 1999 13:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Status descriptions in INSCRIPTION wordlists
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Heyworth [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 July 1999 12:34
To: Lee, Edmund
Subject: Re: Status descriptions in INSCRIPTION wordlists
At 12:25 30/06/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Each wordlist (and that includes thesauri, flat wordlists, look up
>lists, lists of values etc) included in the INSCRIPTION standard will
>have a description intended to help folk find the wordlist that they
>need. These descriptions include a note of the 'Status' of the wordlist
>in INSCRIPTION. I propose the following terms and definitions to record
>Status of each wordlist. Comments please ! - either to me, or share
them
>with all list members!
>
Ed
will you need to have a REJECTED category for wordlists that have been
considered and found wanting, even in an area where there is no
alternative?
best wishes
Mike
=====================================================
Dr Michael Heyworth Council for British Archaeology
Bowes Morrell House, 111 Walmgate, York YO1 9WA, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1904 671417 Fax: +44 (0)1904 671384
http://www.britarch.ac.uk
=====================================================
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|