Difference between revisions of "Talk:ViRR Application Profile"

Revision as of 15:42, 3 March 2009

General[edit]

At a meeting on Oct 20th 08 Wilhelm and Julia decided to use just one AP for ViRR (the former ViRRStructuralElement Profile) which can be used for publications (Volume, Multivolume and Monograph) and for structural elements.

Name of this Application Profile[edit]

I also think that using the name virr in the application profile makes no sense, as virr is only temporary name. So please think of the name for this profile, agree and then Julia can proceed for schema definition. E.g. ViRR_Application_Profile can be renamed to "Scanned_Book_Application_profile" or something similar (similar we have Publication application profile, Faces application profile). (Comment from Natasa)

Natasa would Like to revoke her comment, have not we agreed to have still VIRR application profile in the name, as it actually is very specific to VIRR data?

"Roman Empire Law Books?" (well, we may only internationalize it :)) --Natasa 15:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- there's actually a difference between roman empire and holy roman empire. virr deals with the latter.--Robert 15:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
As it will be effort to change the name of the profile here my question: Is it really necessary to change it just for internationalization or can we stay with VIRR Application Profile?--Friederike 15:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- If so, sorry for the confusion ;)

We do not have to change it at all, but maybe we can provide a translated name somewhere in the application profile page. --Natasa 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, thats how we do it.--Friederike 15:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As the new application Profile is nearly finished and i think now it is better than later to change the name of this profile here are some possibilities:

Scanned Book Application Profile
Structured Content Application Profile
Structured Resource Application Profile
Roman Empire Law Books Application Profile

Application Profile Elements[edit]

Continuation[edit]

I think it should be represented as relation. --Kurt 12:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

LawType[edit]

Maybe it can be represented as refinement of subject? --Kurt 12:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Legislature[edit]

Maybe it can be represented as refinement of subject? --Kurt 12:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Record Identifier[edit]

Should this be a extra field or can we store this information in the Identifier field?--Friederike 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem: MAB data from institute contain different types of identifiers. How can we handle this?

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ===Record Identifier===
 *Should this be a extra field or can we store this information in the Identifier field?--[[User:Kleinfercher|Friederike]] 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
+:Problem: MAB data from institute contain different types of identifiers. How can we handle this?