Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Relationship from concept to non G2 entities

Expand Messages
  • Philippe Mougin
    Hi, I have a G2-based system where I use a element to represent a particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also have two other
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 9 1:56 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to represent a particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also have two other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations. These systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In system A, the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is "569843".

      In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of the concept description.

      At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:

      <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
      <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">

      But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful processing I would also need to know that the first one relates to system A and the second one relates to system B.

      I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B aren't G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through G2 QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is to communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.

      So how would you approach the problem ?

      Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo> elements. For example :

      <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
      <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">

      Thanks,

      Philippe
    • misha.wolf@thomsonreuters.com
      Hi Philippe, It doesn t matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We use qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes, etc. The
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 9 3:46 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Philippe,

        It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We use
        qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes, etc.
        The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't make
        any difference.

        In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that the
        "code" is taken from.

        Regards,
        Misha


        -----Original Message-----
        From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
        Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
        To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities

        Hi,

        I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to represent a
        particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also have two
        other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations. These
        systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In system A,
        the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
        "569843".

        In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of the
        concept description.

        At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
        relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:

        <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
        <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">

        But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful processing I
        would also need to know that the first one relates to system A and the
        second one relates to system B.

        I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B aren't
        G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through G2
        QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is to
        communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
        created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.

        So how would you approach the problem ?

        Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo> elements. For
        example :

        <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
        <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">

        Thanks,

        Philippe



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

        Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
        Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
        http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
        under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
        Yahoo! Groups Links




        This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
      • Michael Steidl (IPTC)
        Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page: it provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant schemes by their authority
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 9 8:01 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page: it provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant schemes by their authority and b) outside the governance of the IPTC. Despite of this we assign a scheme URI which points to a page which explains how to resolve the code.

          Let's go through Philippe's example

          Add to a catalog.
          <scheme alias="locsysA" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" />
          <scheme alias="locsysB" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemB/" />

          Create web pages for these URIs explaining what location repository this is and that the code used for this scheme is the unique ID of a location in this system.

          Add sameAs to your concept:
          <sameAs qcode="locsysA:654321" />
          <sameAs qcode="locsysB:569843" />

          I guess that's it.

          Michael

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
          > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
          > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:46 PM
          > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
          >
          > Hi Philippe,
          >
          > It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We use
          > qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes, etc.
          > The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't make
          > any difference.
          >
          > In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that the
          > "code" is taken from.
          >
          > Regards,
          > Misha
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
          > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
          > Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
          > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
          >
          > Hi,
          >
          > I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to represent a
          > particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also have
          > two
          > other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations. These
          > systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In system A,
          > the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
          > "569843".
          >
          > In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of the
          > concept description.
          >
          > At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
          > relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:
          >
          > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
          > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">
          >
          > But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful processing I
          > would also need to know that the first one relates to system A and the
          > second one relates to system B.
          >
          > I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B aren't
          > G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through G2
          > QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is to
          > communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
          > created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.
          >
          > So how would you approach the problem ?
          >
          > Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo> elements.
          > For
          > example :
          >
          > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
          > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          > Philippe
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
          > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
          > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
          > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
          > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
          > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
          > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
          > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
          > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
          > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Philippe Mougin
          Thanks Misha and Michael. So, say I create a locsysA scheme as in Michael example, I would then instruct receivers that if they get a concept URI that starts
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 12 3:34 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Misha and Michael.

            So, say I create a "locsysA" scheme as in Michael example, I would then instruct receivers that if they get a concept URI that starts with "http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" then the identifier in system A can be computed by removing this prefix from the URI and percent decoding what remains. Right?

            Still, I have a concern with this approach regarding G2 requirements and I would welcome guidance on this:

            G2 makes several requirements governing schemes and concepts URI. In particular, in 12.5.4.1 of the implementation guide (revision 3):
            - Concepts MUST NOT be deleted from a Scheme [...]
            - For the same reason, Concept IDs MUST NOT be re-cycled, i.e. the same identifier used for a different concept.

            The issue is that my non-G2 systems A and B do not work like that: sometimes they delete stuff and they even recycle identifiers. And while they are internal systems in my company, they are not under my control and I can't change their identifier management policies, even if I was to ask politely.

            This means that the concept URI http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/654321 won't necessarily identify the same concept (i.e., the same location) forever, which seems to break the G2 requirements.

            This is probably an issue we don't have with ISO codes.

            So how would you approach the situation. Would you go ahead and consider its ok in such instances to loosen those G2 rules?

            Philippe

            Le 9 sept. 2011 à 17:01, Michael Steidl (IPTC) a écrit :

            > Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page: it provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant schemes by their authority and b) outside the governance of the IPTC. Despite of this we assign a scheme URI which points to a page which explains how to resolve the code.
            >
            > Let's go through Philippe's example
            >
            > Add to a catalog.
            > <scheme alias="locsysA" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" />
            > <scheme alias="locsysB" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemB/" />
            >
            > Create web pages for these URIs explaining what location repository this is and that the code used for this scheme is the unique ID of a location in this system.
            >
            > Add sameAs to your concept:
            > <sameAs qcode="locsysA:654321" />
            > <sameAs qcode="locsysB:569843" />
            >
            > I guess that's it.
            >
            > Michael
            >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
            > > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
            > > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:46 PM
            > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
            > >
            > > Hi Philippe,
            > >
            > > It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We use
            > > qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes, etc.
            > > The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't make
            > > any difference.
            > >
            > > In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that the
            > > "code" is taken from.
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > > Misha
            > >
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
            > > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
            > > Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
            > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
            > >
            > > Hi,
            > >
            > > I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to represent a
            > > particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also have
            > > two
            > > other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations. These
            > > systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In system A,
            > > the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
            > > "569843".
            > >
            > > In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of the
            > > concept description.
            > >
            > > At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
            > > relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:
            > >
            > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
            > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">
            > >
            > > But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful processing I
            > > would also need to know that the first one relates to system A and the
            > > second one relates to system B.
            > >
            > > I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B aren't
            > > G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through G2
            > > QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is to
            > > communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
            > > created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.
            > >
            > > So how would you approach the problem ?
            > >
            > > Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo> elements.
            > > For
            > > example :
            > >
            > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
            > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">
            > >
            > > Thanks,
            > >
            > > Philippe
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
            > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
            > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
            > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
            > > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
            > > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
            > > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
            > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
            > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
            > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
          • misha.wolf@thomsonreuters.com
            Hi Philippe, This is a difficult issue. Thanks for raising it. We shall have to tweak the wording. Regarding ISO, I m afraid that the same issue applies. As
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 12 4:17 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Philippe,

              This is a difficult issue. Thanks for raising it. We shall have to tweak the wording.

              Regarding ISO, I'm afraid that the same issue applies. As from 2011-08-09, the ISO 3166-1 codes SD and SDN identify a different country from the country they identified prior to that date [1]. In case someone thinks that the continuity of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are mistaken. The numeric code assigned by the UN (which is reflected in the ISO 3166-1 numeric code) changed on 2011-07-09 [2].

              [1] http://www.iso.org/iso/nl_vi-10_south_sudan.pdf
              [2] http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm

              Misha


              -----Original Message-----
              From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
              Sent: 12 September 2011 11:34
              To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities

              Thanks Misha and Michael.

              So, say I create a "locsysA" scheme as in Michael example, I would then instruct receivers that if they get a concept URI that starts with "http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" then the identifier in system A can be computed by removing this prefix from the URI and percent decoding what remains. Right?

              Still, I have a concern with this approach regarding G2 requirements and I would welcome guidance on this:

              G2 makes several requirements governing schemes and concepts URI. In particular, in 12.5.4.1 of the implementation guide (revision 3):
              - Concepts MUST NOT be deleted from a Scheme [...]
              - For the same reason, Concept IDs MUST NOT be re-cycled, i.e. the same identifier used for a different concept.

              The issue is that my non-G2 systems A and B do not work like that: sometimes they delete stuff and they even recycle identifiers. And while they are internal systems in my company, they are not under my control and I can't change their identifier management policies, even if I was to ask politely.

              This means that the concept URI http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/654321 won't necessarily identify the same concept (i.e., the same location) forever, which seems to break the G2 requirements.

              This is probably an issue we don't have with ISO codes.

              So how would you approach the situation. Would you go ahead and consider its ok in such instances to loosen those G2 rules?

              Philippe

              Le 9 sept. 2011 à 17:01, Michael Steidl (IPTC) a écrit :

              > Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page: it provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant schemes by their authority and b) outside the governance of the IPTC. Despite of this we assign a scheme URI which points to a page which explains how to resolve the code.
              >
              > Let's go through Philippe's example
              >
              > Add to a catalog.
              > <scheme alias="locsysA" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" />
              > <scheme alias="locsysB" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemB/" />
              >
              > Create web pages for these URIs explaining what location repository this is and that the code used for this scheme is the unique ID of a location in this system.
              >
              > Add sameAs to your concept:
              > <sameAs qcode="locsysA:654321" />
              > <sameAs qcode="locsysB:569843" />
              >
              > I guess that's it.
              >
              > Michael
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
              > > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
              > > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:46 PM
              > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
              > >
              > > Hi Philippe,
              > >
              > > It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We use
              > > qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes, etc.
              > > The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't make
              > > any difference.
              > >
              > > In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that the
              > > "code" is taken from.
              > >
              > > Regards,
              > > Misha
              > >
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
              > > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
              > > Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
              > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
              > >
              > > Hi,
              > >
              > > I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to represent a
              > > particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also have
              > > two
              > > other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations. These
              > > systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In system A,
              > > the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
              > > "569843".
              > >
              > > In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of the
              > > concept description.
              > >
              > > At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
              > > relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:
              > >
              > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
              > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">
              > >
              > > But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful processing I
              > > would also need to know that the first one relates to system A and the
              > > second one relates to system B.
              > >
              > > I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B aren't
              > > G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through G2
              > > QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is to
              > > communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
              > > created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.
              > >
              > > So how would you approach the problem ?
              > >
              > > Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo> elements.
              > > For
              > > example :
              > >
              > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
              > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">
              > >
              > > Thanks,
              > >
              > > Philippe
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
              > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
              > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
              > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
              > > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
              > > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
              > > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
              > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
              > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
              > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >



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

              Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
              Yahoo! Groups Links




              This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
            • Michael Steidl (IPTC)
              Hi Philippe I understand your concerns about the persistence of identifiers but this requirement cannot be cancelled that easily: - a news item of 12 September
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 12 5:47 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Philippe

                I understand your concerns about the persistence of identifiers but this requirement cannot be cancelled that easily:

                - a news item of 12 September 2011 is categorized by a subject with the concept URI http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/654321 which stands for the region Alsace in France.

                - on 1 October 2011 the LocationSystemA drops - for whatever reason - Alsace and assigns the code to Lorraine.

                - if a customer wants to search for news items about Alsace on 20 October what should this poor guy do? Using the code 654321 and constrain the search to items before 1 October? We can hope he knows about the date of the change.

                That's the reason for the G2 approach - and actually it is a Semantic Web approach - that a concept URI must never be reused. It may be "retired" = recommended not to use it any longer, e.g. for a dissolved company, but nothing else.

                What I don't understand about this location system is that locations usually do not disappear - except Atlantis, I know - so why are terms disappearing, the id is cancelled and re-applied to another location - but this only reflecting my pondering.

                A workaround could be to change the scheme URI when a code is re-assigned:

                URI from 1 January to 30 September (see example above): http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA20110101/
                http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA20110101/654321 = Alsace

                URI from 1 October: http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA20111001/
                http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA20111010/654321 = Lorraine

                ... but this would require that the sameAs relationships have to be extended for each of these changes.

                Michael

                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 12:34 PM
                > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                >
                > Thanks Misha and Michael.
                >
                > So, say I create a "locsysA" scheme as in Michael example, I would then
                > instruct receivers that if they get a concept URI that starts with
                > "http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" then the identifier in
                > system A can be computed by removing this prefix from the URI and
                > percent decoding what remains. Right?
                >
                > Still, I have a concern with this approach regarding G2 requirements
                > and I would welcome guidance on this:
                >
                > G2 makes several requirements governing schemes and concepts URI. In
                > particular, in 12.5.4.1 of the implementation guide (revision 3):
                > - Concepts MUST NOT be deleted from a Scheme [...]
                > - For the same reason, Concept IDs MUST NOT be re-cycled, i.e. the same
                > identifier used for a different concept.
                >
                > The issue is that my non-G2 systems A and B do not work like that:
                > sometimes they delete stuff and they even recycle identifiers. And
                > while they are internal systems in my company, they are not under my
                > control and I can't change their identifier management policies, even
                > if I was to ask politely.
                >
                > This means that the concept URI
                > http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/654321 won't necessarily
                > identify the same concept (i.e., the same location) forever, which
                > seems to break the G2 requirements.
                >
                > This is probably an issue we don't have with ISO codes.
                >
                > So how would you approach the situation. Would you go ahead and
                > consider its ok in such instances to loosen those G2 rules?
                >
                > Philippe
                >
                > Le 9 sept. 2011 à 17:01, Michael Steidl (IPTC) a écrit :
                >
                > > Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page: it
                > provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant schemes
                > by their authority and b) outside the governance of the IPTC. Despite
                > of this we assign a scheme URI which points to a page which explains
                > how to resolve the code.
                > >
                > > Let's go through Philippe's example
                > >
                > > Add to a catalog.
                > > <scheme alias="locsysA"
                > uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" />
                > > <scheme alias="locsysB"
                > uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemB/" />
                > >
                > > Create web pages for these URIs explaining what location repository
                > this is and that the code used for this scheme is the unique ID of a
                > location in this system.
                > >
                > > Add sameAs to your concept:
                > > <sameAs qcode="locsysA:654321" />
                > > <sameAs qcode="locsysB:569843" />
                > >
                > > I guess that's it.
                > >
                > > Michael
                > >
                > > > -----Original Message-----
                > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com]
                > On
                > > > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
                > > > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:46 PM
                > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2
                > entities
                > > >
                > > > Hi Philippe,
                > > >
                > > > It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We use
                > > > qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes,
                > etc.
                > > > The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't
                > make
                > > > any difference.
                > > >
                > > > In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that the
                > > > "code" is taken from.
                > > >
                > > > Regards,
                > > > Misha
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > -----Original Message-----
                > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com]
                > On
                > > > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                > > > Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
                > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                > > >
                > > > Hi,
                > > >
                > > > I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to
                > represent a
                > > > particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also
                > have
                > > > two
                > > > other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations.
                > These
                > > > systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In system
                > A,
                > > > the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
                > > > "569843".
                > > >
                > > > In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of
                > the
                > > > concept description.
                > > >
                > > > At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
                > > > relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:
                > > >
                > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
                > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">
                > > >
                > > > But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful
                > processing I
                > > > would also need to know that the first one relates to system A and
                > the
                > > > second one relates to system B.
                > > >
                > > > I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B
                > aren't
                > > > G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through G2
                > > > QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is to
                > > > communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
                > > > created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.
                > > >
                > > > So how would you approach the problem ?
                > > >
                > > > Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo>
                > elements.
                > > > For
                > > > example :
                > > >
                > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
                > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">
                > > >
                > > > Thanks,
                > > >
                > > > Philippe
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------------------
                > > >
                > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be
                > submitted
                > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
                > > > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those
                > of
                > > > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states
                > them
                > > > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------------------
                > > >
                > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be
                > submitted
                > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
              • Jo
                Hi Misha re In case someone thinks that the continuity of the country s name indicates a continuity of identity, they are mistaken. - I m intrigued. Though
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 12 8:49 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Misha

                  re "In case someone thinks that the continuity
                  of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are mistaken. " - I'm intrigued.

                  Though the territorial extent of the old Sudan has changed, most other aspects of it have not, for example afaik it is still the same geopolitical actor, continues to have representation abroad in the same form etc. I think the numeric code has changed because the territorial limits have changed and that the ISO alpha code has remained the same because the (continuing) government of Sudan did not request a change to its code.

                  A similar thing happened for Germany, I believe, upon the integration of the former DDR. That doesn't mean, afaik, that DE represents a different country (qua geopolitical actor) before and after the change of numeric code, though likewise its territorial extend did change.

                  Contrariwise, a while ago, Zaire became the Democratic Republic of the Congo and changed its code from ZR to CD but kept its numeric code of 180.

                  A good illustration of the need to understand the policies behind code maintenance, and in this case possibly a good illustration of the need for clarity in distinguishing a geopolitical actor and its associated territory. You can take a skiing holiday in France (location) and make a treaty with France (geopolitical actor) but you can't make a treaty with a location nor take a skiing holiday in a geopolitical actor.

                  For some applications it may be useful to distinguish SDN pre-9th July 2011 from SDN post-9th July - perhaps one should use a different alias from within NewsML?

                  Likewise, by analogy, for Philippe's question. Ideally he'd have a chronology of the introduction of and deprecation of codes, of course.

                  Best
                  Jo

                  --- In newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com, misha.wolf@... wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Philippe,
                  >
                  > This is a difficult issue. Thanks for raising it. We shall have to tweak the wording.
                  >
                  > Regarding ISO, I'm afraid that the same issue applies. As from 2011-08-09, the ISO 3166-1 codes SD and SDN identify a different country from the country they identified prior to that date [1]. In case someone thinks that the continuity of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are mistaken. The numeric code assigned by the UN (which is reflected in the ISO 3166-1 numeric code) changed on 2011-07-09 [2].
                  >
                  > [1] http://www.iso.org/iso/nl_vi-10_south_sudan.pdf
                  > [2] http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm
                  >
                  > Misha
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                  > Sent: 12 September 2011 11:34
                  > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                  >
                  > Thanks Misha and Michael.
                  >
                  > So, say I create a "locsysA" scheme as in Michael example, I would then instruct receivers that if they get a concept URI that starts with "http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" then the identifier in system A can be computed by removing this prefix from the URI and percent decoding what remains. Right?
                  >
                  > Still, I have a concern with this approach regarding G2 requirements and I would welcome guidance on this:
                  >
                  > G2 makes several requirements governing schemes and concepts URI. In particular, in 12.5.4.1 of the implementation guide (revision 3):
                  > - Concepts MUST NOT be deleted from a Scheme [...]
                  > - For the same reason, Concept IDs MUST NOT be re-cycled, i.e. the same identifier used for a different concept.
                  >
                  > The issue is that my non-G2 systems A and B do not work like that: sometimes they delete stuff and they even recycle identifiers. And while they are internal systems in my company, they are not under my control and I can't change their identifier management policies, even if I was to ask politely.
                  >
                  > This means that the concept URI http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/654321 won't necessarily identify the same concept (i.e., the same location) forever, which seems to break the G2 requirements.
                  >
                  > This is probably an issue we don't have with ISO codes.
                  >
                  > So how would you approach the situation. Would you go ahead and consider its ok in such instances to loosen those G2 rules?
                  >
                  > Philippe
                  >
                  > Le 9 sept. 2011 à 17:01, Michael Steidl (IPTC) a écrit :
                  >
                  > > Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page: it provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant schemes by their authority and b) outside the governance of the IPTC. Despite of this we assign a scheme URI which points to a page which explains how to resolve the code.
                  > >
                  > > Let's go through Philippe's example
                  > >
                  > > Add to a catalog.
                  > > <scheme alias="locsysA" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" />
                  > > <scheme alias="locsysB" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemB/" />
                  > >
                  > > Create web pages for these URIs explaining what location repository this is and that the code used for this scheme is the unique ID of a location in this system.
                  > >
                  > > Add sameAs to your concept:
                  > > <sameAs qcode="locsysA:654321" />
                  > > <sameAs qcode="locsysB:569843" />
                  > >
                  > > I guess that's it.
                  > >
                  > > Michael
                  > >
                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                  > > > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
                  > > > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:46 PM
                  > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi Philippe,
                  > > >
                  > > > It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We use
                  > > > qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes, etc.
                  > > > The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't make
                  > > > any difference.
                  > > >
                  > > > In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that the
                  > > > "code" is taken from.
                  > > >
                  > > > Regards,
                  > > > Misha
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                  > > > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                  > > > Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
                  > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi,
                  > > >
                  > > > I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to represent a
                  > > > particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also have
                  > > > two
                  > > > other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations. These
                  > > > systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In system A,
                  > > > the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
                  > > > "569843".
                  > > >
                  > > > In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of the
                  > > > concept description.
                  > > >
                  > > > At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
                  > > > relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:
                  > > >
                  > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
                  > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">
                  > > >
                  > > > But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful processing I
                  > > > would also need to know that the first one relates to system A and the
                  > > > second one relates to system B.
                  > > >
                  > > > I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B aren't
                  > > > G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through G2
                  > > > QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is to
                  > > > communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
                  > > > created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.
                  > > >
                  > > > So how would you approach the problem ?
                  > > >
                  > > > Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo> elements.
                  > > > For
                  > > > example :
                  > > >
                  > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
                  > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks,
                  > > >
                  > > > Philippe
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > ------------------------------------
                  > > >
                  > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                  > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                  > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                  > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
                  > > > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
                  > > > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
                  > > > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > ------------------------------------
                  > > >
                  > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                  > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                  > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                  > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                  >
                • misha.wolf@thomsonreuters.com
                  Hi Jo, Long time no see. Consider Yugoslavia. Constituent republics peeled away, one after the other, but the Alpha-2 code YU was retained till (alomost)
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 12 9:11 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Jo,

                    Long time no see.

                    Consider Yugoslavia. Constituent republics peeled away, one after the other, but the Alpha-2 code "YU" was retained till (alomost) the end. Was each instance of "Yugoslavia" the same as the one before? Was "Yugoslavia" without Croatia the same country as "Yugoslavia" with Croatia?

                    Any analysis of indicators, eg territory, population, GDP, breakdown of state expenditure, etc, must take into account that a country before such a merger/de-merger is not the same country as the one(s) before/after the merger/de-merger.

                    The fact that many characteristics survive the merger/de-merger does not mean that an entity after the merger/de-merger is the same entity as a similarly-named one before the merger/de-merger.

                    In Thomson Reuters we assign Permanent Identifiers to all concepts (including entities) we consider useful, and link these using typed relationships. In our system, the "old" Sudan and the "new" Sudan have different PermIDs.

                    Regards,
                    Misha


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jo
                    Sent: 12 September 2011 16:49
                    To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2 entities

                    Hi Misha

                    re "In case someone thinks that the continuity
                    of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are mistaken. " - I'm intrigued.

                    Though the territorial extent of the old Sudan has changed, most other aspects of it have not, for example afaik it is still the same geopolitical actor, continues to have representation abroad in the same form etc. I think the numeric code has changed because the territorial limits have changed and that the ISO alpha code has remained the same because the (continuing) government of Sudan did not request a change to its code.

                    A similar thing happened for Germany, I believe, upon the integration of the former DDR. That doesn't mean, afaik, that DE represents a different country (qua geopolitical actor) before and after the change of numeric code, though likewise its territorial extend did change.

                    Contrariwise, a while ago, Zaire became the Democratic Republic of the Congo and changed its code from ZR to CD but kept its numeric code of 180.

                    A good illustration of the need to understand the policies behind code maintenance, and in this case possibly a good illustration of the need for clarity in distinguishing a geopolitical actor and its associated territory. You can take a skiing holiday in France (location) and make a treaty with France (geopolitical actor) but you can't make a treaty with a location nor take a skiing holiday in a geopolitical actor.

                    For some applications it may be useful to distinguish SDN pre-9th July 2011 from SDN post-9th July - perhaps one should use a different alias from within NewsML?

                    Likewise, by analogy, for Philippe's question. Ideally he'd have a chronology of the introduction of and deprecation of codes, of course.

                    Best
                    Jo

                    --- In newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com, misha.wolf@... wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Philippe,
                    >
                    > This is a difficult issue. Thanks for raising it. We shall have to tweak the wording.
                    >
                    > Regarding ISO, I'm afraid that the same issue applies. As from 2011-08-09, the ISO 3166-1 codes SD and SDN identify a different country from the country they identified prior to that date [1]. In case someone thinks that the continuity of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are mistaken. The numeric code assigned by the UN (which is reflected in the ISO 3166-1 numeric code) changed on 2011-07-09 [2].
                    >
                    > [1] http://www.iso.org/iso/nl_vi-10_south_sudan.pdf
                    > [2] http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm
                    >
                    > Misha
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                    > Sent: 12 September 2011 11:34
                    > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                    >
                    > Thanks Misha and Michael.
                    >
                    > So, say I create a "locsysA" scheme as in Michael example, I would then instruct receivers that if they get a concept URI that starts with "http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" then the identifier in system A can be computed by removing this prefix from the URI and percent decoding what remains. Right?
                    >
                    > Still, I have a concern with this approach regarding G2 requirements and I would welcome guidance on this:
                    >
                    > G2 makes several requirements governing schemes and concepts URI. In particular, in 12.5.4.1 of the implementation guide (revision 3):
                    > - Concepts MUST NOT be deleted from a Scheme [...]
                    > - For the same reason, Concept IDs MUST NOT be re-cycled, i.e. the same identifier used for a different concept.
                    >
                    > The issue is that my non-G2 systems A and B do not work like that: sometimes they delete stuff and they even recycle identifiers. And while they are internal systems in my company, they are not under my control and I can't change their identifier management policies, even if I was to ask politely.
                    >
                    > This means that the concept URI http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/654321 won't necessarily identify the same concept (i.e., the same location) forever, which seems to break the G2 requirements.
                    >
                    > This is probably an issue we don't have with ISO codes.
                    >
                    > So how would you approach the situation. Would you go ahead and consider its ok in such instances to loosen those G2 rules?
                    >
                    > Philippe
                    >
                    > Le 9 sept. 2011 à 17:01, Michael Steidl (IPTC) a écrit :
                    >
                    > > Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page: it provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant schemes by their authority and b) outside the governance of the IPTC. Despite of this we assign a scheme URI which points to a page which explains how to resolve the code.
                    > >
                    > > Let's go through Philippe's example
                    > >
                    > > Add to a catalog.
                    > > <scheme alias="locsysA" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" />
                    > > <scheme alias="locsysB" uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemB/" />
                    > >
                    > > Create web pages for these URIs explaining what location repository this is and that the code used for this scheme is the unique ID of a location in this system.
                    > >
                    > > Add sameAs to your concept:
                    > > <sameAs qcode="locsysA:654321" />
                    > > <sameAs qcode="locsysB:569843" />
                    > >
                    > > I guess that's it.
                    > >
                    > > Michael
                    > >
                    > > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                    > > > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
                    > > > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:46 PM
                    > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                    > > >
                    > > > Hi Philippe,
                    > > >
                    > > > It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We use
                    > > > qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes, etc.
                    > > > The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't make
                    > > > any difference.
                    > > >
                    > > > In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that the
                    > > > "code" is taken from.
                    > > >
                    > > > Regards,
                    > > > Misha
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                    > > > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                    > > > Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
                    > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                    > > >
                    > > > Hi,
                    > > >
                    > > > I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to represent a
                    > > > particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also have
                    > > > two
                    > > > other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations. These
                    > > > systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In system A,
                    > > > the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
                    > > > "569843".
                    > > >
                    > > > In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of the
                    > > > concept description.
                    > > >
                    > > > At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
                    > > > relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:
                    > > >
                    > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
                    > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">
                    > > >
                    > > > But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful processing I
                    > > > would also need to know that the first one relates to system A and the
                    > > > second one relates to system B.
                    > > >
                    > > > I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B aren't
                    > > > G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through G2
                    > > > QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is to
                    > > > communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
                    > > > created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.
                    > > >
                    > > > So how would you approach the problem ?
                    > > >
                    > > > Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo> elements.
                    > > > For
                    > > > example :
                    > > >
                    > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
                    > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">
                    > > >
                    > > > Thanks,
                    > > >
                    > > > Philippe
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ------------------------------------
                    > > >
                    > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                    > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                    > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                    > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                    > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
                    > > > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
                    > > > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
                    > > > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ------------------------------------
                    > > >
                    > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                    > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                    > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                    > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                    > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                    >




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

                    Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                    Yahoo! Groups Links




                    This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                  • Michael Steidl (IPTC)
                    Misha You have to take into account the rules for assigning a country code to a country: - it must be a member of the UN (that s why the Kosovo has no code) -
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 12 10:27 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Misha
                      You have to take into account the rules for assigning a country code to a country:
                      - it must be a member of the UN (that's why the Kosovo has no code)
                      - and as far as I know the code is kept as the UN considers the member to be the same, and that are primarily political parameters.

                      Michael

                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
                      > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:11 PM
                      > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2
                      > entities
                      >
                      > Hi Jo,
                      >
                      > Long time no see.
                      >
                      > Consider Yugoslavia. Constituent republics peeled away, one after the
                      > other, but the Alpha-2 code "YU" was retained till (alomost) the end.
                      > Was each instance of "Yugoslavia" the same as the one before? Was
                      > "Yugoslavia" without Croatia the same country as "Yugoslavia" with
                      > Croatia?
                      >
                      > Any analysis of indicators, eg territory, population, GDP, breakdown of
                      > state expenditure, etc, must take into account that a country before
                      > such a merger/de-merger is not the same country as the one(s)
                      > before/after the merger/de-merger.
                      >
                      > The fact that many characteristics survive the merger/de-merger does
                      > not mean that an entity after the merger/de-merger is the same entity
                      > as a similarly-named one before the merger/de-merger.
                      >
                      > In Thomson Reuters we assign Permanent Identifiers to all concepts
                      > (including entities) we consider useful, and link these using typed
                      > relationships. In our system, the "old" Sudan and the "new" Sudan have
                      > different PermIDs.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Misha
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > Behalf Of Jo
                      > Sent: 12 September 2011 16:49
                      > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                      >
                      > Hi Misha
                      >
                      > re "In case someone thinks that the continuity
                      > of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are
                      > mistaken. " - I'm intrigued.
                      >
                      > Though the territorial extent of the old Sudan has changed, most other
                      > aspects of it have not, for example afaik it is still the same
                      > geopolitical actor, continues to have representation abroad in the same
                      > form etc. I think the numeric code has changed because the territorial
                      > limits have changed and that the ISO alpha code has remained the same
                      > because the (continuing) government of Sudan did not request a change
                      > to its code.
                      >
                      > A similar thing happened for Germany, I believe, upon the integration
                      > of the former DDR. That doesn't mean, afaik, that DE represents a
                      > different country (qua geopolitical actor) before and after the change
                      > of numeric code, though likewise its territorial extend did change.
                      >
                      > Contrariwise, a while ago, Zaire became the Democratic Republic of the
                      > Congo and changed its code from ZR to CD but kept its numeric code of
                      > 180.
                      >
                      > A good illustration of the need to understand the policies behind code
                      > maintenance, and in this case possibly a good illustration of the need
                      > for clarity in distinguishing a geopolitical actor and its associated
                      > territory. You can take a skiing holiday in France (location) and make
                      > a treaty with France (geopolitical actor) but you can't make a treaty
                      > with a location nor take a skiing holiday in a geopolitical actor.
                      >
                      > For some applications it may be useful to distinguish SDN pre-9th July
                      > 2011 from SDN post-9th July - perhaps one should use a different alias
                      > from within NewsML?
                      >
                      > Likewise, by analogy, for Philippe's question. Ideally he'd have a
                      > chronology of the introduction of and deprecation of codes, of course.
                      >
                      > Best
                      > Jo
                      >
                      > --- In newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com, misha.wolf@... wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi Philippe,
                      > >
                      > > This is a difficult issue. Thanks for raising it. We shall have to
                      > tweak the wording.
                      > >
                      > > Regarding ISO, I'm afraid that the same issue applies. As from 2011-
                      > 08-09, the ISO 3166-1 codes SD and SDN identify a different country
                      > from the country they identified prior to that date [1]. In case
                      > someone thinks that the continuity of the country's name indicates a
                      > continuity of identity, they are mistaken. The numeric code assigned
                      > by the UN (which is reflected in the ISO 3166-1 numeric code) changed
                      > on 2011-07-09 [2].
                      > >
                      > > [1] http://www.iso.org/iso/nl_vi-10_south_sudan.pdf
                      > > [2] http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm
                      > >
                      > > Misha
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                      > > Sent: 12 September 2011 11:34
                      > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Subject: Re: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                      > >
                      > > Thanks Misha and Michael.
                      > >
                      > > So, say I create a "locsysA" scheme as in Michael example, I would
                      > then instruct receivers that if they get a concept URI that starts with
                      > "http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" then the identifier in
                      > system A can be computed by removing this prefix from the URI and
                      > percent decoding what remains. Right?
                      > >
                      > > Still, I have a concern with this approach regarding G2 requirements
                      > and I would welcome guidance on this:
                      > >
                      > > G2 makes several requirements governing schemes and concepts URI. In
                      > particular, in 12.5.4.1 of the implementation guide (revision 3):
                      > > - Concepts MUST NOT be deleted from a Scheme [...]
                      > > - For the same reason, Concept IDs MUST NOT be re-cycled, i.e. the
                      > same identifier used for a different concept.
                      > >
                      > > The issue is that my non-G2 systems A and B do not work like that:
                      > sometimes they delete stuff and they even recycle identifiers. And
                      > while they are internal systems in my company, they are not under my
                      > control and I can't change their identifier management policies, even
                      > if I was to ask politely.
                      > >
                      > > This means that the concept URI
                      > http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/654321 won't necessarily
                      > identify the same concept (i.e., the same location) forever, which
                      > seems to break the G2 requirements.
                      > >
                      > > This is probably an issue we don't have with ISO codes.
                      > >
                      > > So how would you approach the situation. Would you go ahead and
                      > consider its ok in such instances to loosen those G2 rules?
                      > >
                      > > Philippe
                      > >
                      > > Le 9 sept. 2011 à 17:01, Michael Steidl (IPTC) a écrit :
                      > >
                      > > > Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page:
                      > it provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant
                      > schemes by their authority and b) outside the governance of the IPTC.
                      > Despite of this we assign a scheme URI which points to a page which
                      > explains how to resolve the code.
                      > > >
                      > > > Let's go through Philippe's example
                      > > >
                      > > > Add to a catalog.
                      > > > <scheme alias="locsysA"
                      > uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" />
                      > > > <scheme alias="locsysB"
                      > uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemB/" />
                      > > >
                      > > > Create web pages for these URIs explaining what location repository
                      > this is and that the code used for this scheme is the unique ID of a
                      > location in this system.
                      > > >
                      > > > Add sameAs to your concept:
                      > > > <sameAs qcode="locsysA:654321" />
                      > > > <sameAs qcode="locsysB:569843" />
                      > > >
                      > > > I guess that's it.
                      > > >
                      > > > Michael
                      > > >
                      > > > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-
                      > g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > > > > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
                      > > > > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:46 PM
                      > > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2
                      > entities
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Hi Philippe,
                      > > > >
                      > > > > It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We
                      > use
                      > > > > qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes,
                      > etc.
                      > > > > The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't
                      > make
                      > > > > any difference.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that
                      > the
                      > > > > "code" is taken from.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Regards,
                      > > > > Misha
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-
                      > g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > > > > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                      > > > > Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
                      > > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > > Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Hi,
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to
                      > represent a
                      > > > > particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also
                      > have
                      > > > > two
                      > > > > other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations.
                      > These
                      > > > > systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In
                      > system A,
                      > > > > the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
                      > > > > "569843".
                      > > > >
                      > > > > In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of
                      > the
                      > > > > concept description.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
                      > > > > relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
                      > > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">
                      > > > >
                      > > > > But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful
                      > processing I
                      > > > > would also need to know that the first one relates to system A
                      > and the
                      > > > > second one relates to system B.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B
                      > aren't
                      > > > > G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through
                      > G2
                      > > > > QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is
                      > to
                      > > > > communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
                      > > > > created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > So how would you approach the problem ?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo>
                      > elements.
                      > > > > For
                      > > > > example :
                      > > > >
                      > > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
                      > > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Thanks,
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Philippe
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > ------------------------------------
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with
                      > the
                      > > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                      > > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be
                      > submitted
                      > > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                      > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news
                      > and
                      > > > > information company. Any views expressed in this message are
                      > those of
                      > > > > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically
                      > states them
                      > > > > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > ------------------------------------
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with
                      > the
                      > > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                      > > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be
                      > submitted
                      > > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                      > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------------------------------
                      > >
                      > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                      > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                      > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                      > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
                      > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
                      > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
                      > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                      > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                      > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                      > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
                      > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
                      > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
                      > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                      > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                      > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                      > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • misha.wolf@thomsonreuters.com
                      As I wrote below, the UN has changed the code for Sudan: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm Misha ... From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                      Message 10 of 12 , Sep 12 10:53 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        As I wrote below, the UN has changed the code for Sudan:

                        http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm

                        Misha

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Steidl (IPTC)
                        Sent: 12 September 2011 18:27
                        To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2 entities

                        Misha
                        You have to take into account the rules for assigning a country code to a country:
                        - it must be a member of the UN (that's why the Kosovo has no code)
                        - and as far as I know the code is kept as the UN considers the member to be the same, and that are primarily political parameters.

                        Michael

                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                        > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
                        > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:11 PM
                        > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2
                        > entities
                        >
                        > Hi Jo,
                        >
                        > Long time no see.
                        >
                        > Consider Yugoslavia. Constituent republics peeled away, one after the
                        > other, but the Alpha-2 code "YU" was retained till (alomost) the end.
                        > Was each instance of "Yugoslavia" the same as the one before? Was
                        > "Yugoslavia" without Croatia the same country as "Yugoslavia" with
                        > Croatia?
                        >
                        > Any analysis of indicators, eg territory, population, GDP, breakdown of
                        > state expenditure, etc, must take into account that a country before
                        > such a merger/de-merger is not the same country as the one(s)
                        > before/after the merger/de-merger.
                        >
                        > The fact that many characteristics survive the merger/de-merger does
                        > not mean that an entity after the merger/de-merger is the same entity
                        > as a similarly-named one before the merger/de-merger.
                        >
                        > In Thomson Reuters we assign Permanent Identifiers to all concepts
                        > (including entities) we consider useful, and link these using typed
                        > relationships. In our system, the "old" Sudan and the "new" Sudan have
                        > different PermIDs.
                        >
                        > Regards,
                        > Misha
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                        > Behalf Of Jo
                        > Sent: 12 September 2011 16:49
                        > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                        >
                        > Hi Misha
                        >
                        > re "In case someone thinks that the continuity
                        > of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are
                        > mistaken. " - I'm intrigued.
                        >
                        > Though the territorial extent of the old Sudan has changed, most other
                        > aspects of it have not, for example afaik it is still the same
                        > geopolitical actor, continues to have representation abroad in the same
                        > form etc. I think the numeric code has changed because the territorial
                        > limits have changed and that the ISO alpha code has remained the same
                        > because the (continuing) government of Sudan did not request a change
                        > to its code.
                        >
                        > A similar thing happened for Germany, I believe, upon the integration
                        > of the former DDR. That doesn't mean, afaik, that DE represents a
                        > different country (qua geopolitical actor) before and after the change
                        > of numeric code, though likewise its territorial extend did change.
                        >
                        > Contrariwise, a while ago, Zaire became the Democratic Republic of the
                        > Congo and changed its code from ZR to CD but kept its numeric code of
                        > 180.
                        >
                        > A good illustration of the need to understand the policies behind code
                        > maintenance, and in this case possibly a good illustration of the need
                        > for clarity in distinguishing a geopolitical actor and its associated
                        > territory. You can take a skiing holiday in France (location) and make
                        > a treaty with France (geopolitical actor) but you can't make a treaty
                        > with a location nor take a skiing holiday in a geopolitical actor.
                        >
                        > For some applications it may be useful to distinguish SDN pre-9th July
                        > 2011 from SDN post-9th July - perhaps one should use a different alias
                        > from within NewsML?
                        >
                        > Likewise, by analogy, for Philippe's question. Ideally he'd have a
                        > chronology of the introduction of and deprecation of codes, of course.
                        >
                        > Best
                        > Jo
                        >
                        > --- In newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com, misha.wolf@... wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Hi Philippe,
                        > >
                        > > This is a difficult issue. Thanks for raising it. We shall have to
                        > tweak the wording.
                        > >
                        > > Regarding ISO, I'm afraid that the same issue applies. As from 2011-
                        > 08-09, the ISO 3166-1 codes SD and SDN identify a different country
                        > from the country they identified prior to that date [1]. In case
                        > someone thinks that the continuity of the country's name indicates a
                        > continuity of identity, they are mistaken. The numeric code assigned
                        > by the UN (which is reflected in the ISO 3166-1 numeric code) changed
                        > on 2011-07-09 [2].
                        > >
                        > > [1] http://www.iso.org/iso/nl_vi-10_south_sudan.pdf
                        > > [2] http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm
                        > >
                        > > Misha
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                        > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                        > > Sent: 12 September 2011 11:34
                        > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: Re: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                        > >
                        > > Thanks Misha and Michael.
                        > >
                        > > So, say I create a "locsysA" scheme as in Michael example, I would
                        > then instruct receivers that if they get a concept URI that starts with
                        > "http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" then the identifier in
                        > system A can be computed by removing this prefix from the URI and
                        > percent decoding what remains. Right?
                        > >
                        > > Still, I have a concern with this approach regarding G2 requirements
                        > and I would welcome guidance on this:
                        > >
                        > > G2 makes several requirements governing schemes and concepts URI. In
                        > particular, in 12.5.4.1 of the implementation guide (revision 3):
                        > > - Concepts MUST NOT be deleted from a Scheme [...]
                        > > - For the same reason, Concept IDs MUST NOT be re-cycled, i.e. the
                        > same identifier used for a different concept.
                        > >
                        > > The issue is that my non-G2 systems A and B do not work like that:
                        > sometimes they delete stuff and they even recycle identifiers. And
                        > while they are internal systems in my company, they are not under my
                        > control and I can't change their identifier management policies, even
                        > if I was to ask politely.
                        > >
                        > > This means that the concept URI
                        > http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/654321 won't necessarily
                        > identify the same concept (i.e., the same location) forever, which
                        > seems to break the G2 requirements.
                        > >
                        > > This is probably an issue we don't have with ISO codes.
                        > >
                        > > So how would you approach the situation. Would you go ahead and
                        > consider its ok in such instances to loosen those G2 rules?
                        > >
                        > > Philippe
                        > >
                        > > Le 9 sept. 2011 à 17:01, Michael Steidl (IPTC) a écrit :
                        > >
                        > > > Adding to what Misha said: look at the http://cvx.iptc.org/ page:
                        > it provides scheme URIs for schemes which are a) not G2 compliant
                        > schemes by their authority and b) outside the governance of the IPTC.
                        > Despite of this we assign a scheme URI which points to a page which
                        > explains how to resolve the code.
                        > > >
                        > > > Let's go through Philippe's example
                        > > >
                        > > > Add to a catalog.
                        > > > <scheme alias="locsysA"
                        > uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemA/" />
                        > > > <scheme alias="locsysB"
                        > uri="http://cvx.anewsprovider.com/locationsystemB/" />
                        > > >
                        > > > Create web pages for these URIs explaining what location repository
                        > this is and that the code used for this scheme is the unique ID of a
                        > location in this system.
                        > > >
                        > > > Add sameAs to your concept:
                        > > > <sameAs qcode="locsysA:654321" />
                        > > > <sameAs qcode="locsysB:569843" />
                        > > >
                        > > > I guess that's it.
                        > > >
                        > > > Michael
                        > > >
                        > > > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-
                        > g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                        > > > > Behalf Of misha.wolf@...
                        > > > > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:46 PM
                        > > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2
                        > entities
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Hi Philippe,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > It doesn't matter whether systems A and B are G2-compliant. We
                        > use
                        > > > > qcodes for everything, eg ISO country codes, ISO currency codes,
                        > etc.
                        > > > > The relevant ISO standards say nothing about G2 but this doesn't
                        > make
                        > > > > any difference.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > In "scheme:code", the "scheme" simply identifies the place that
                        > the
                        > > > > "code" is taken from.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Regards,
                        > > > > Misha
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > > > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-
                        > g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                        > > > > Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                        > > > > Sent: 09 September 2011 09:57
                        > > > > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > > Subject: [newsml-g2] Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Hi,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I have a G2-based system where I use a <concept> element to
                        > represent a
                        > > > > particular location (the city of Paris). It happens that I also
                        > have
                        > > > > two
                        > > > > other systems (A and B), non G2 based, where I manage locations.
                        > These
                        > > > > systems have their own identifiers for the city of Paris. In
                        > system A,
                        > > > > the identifier is "654321" and in system B one the identifier is
                        > > > > "569843".
                        > > > >
                        > > > > In my G2 <concept> I want to provide those identifiers as part of
                        > the
                        > > > > concept description.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > At first glance, it seems that <sameAs> correctly express the
                        > > > > relationship I want to represent. I my <concept> I would have:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="654321">
                        > > > > <sameAs type="cpnat:geoArea" literal="569843">
                        > > > >
                        > > > > But of course this doesn't work because for any meaningful
                        > processing I
                        > > > > would also need to know that the first one relates to system A
                        > and the
                        > > > > second one relates to system B.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I can't use qcode instead of literal as system A and system B
                        > aren't
                        > > > > G2-based and consequently don't expose their identifiers through
                        > G2
                        > > > > QCodes. I could create such schemes myself but since my goal is
                        > to
                        > > > > communicate the identifiers of Paris in A and B (and not in newly
                        > > > > created ad hoc schemes) that would be self defeating.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > So how would you approach the problem ?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Note : as a fallback I'm thinking about using <remoteInfo>
                        > elements.
                        > > > > For
                        > > > > example :
                        > > > >
                        > > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemA" residref="654321">
                        > > > > <remoteInfo rel="rels:equivalent-in-systemB" residref="569843">
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Thanks,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Philippe
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ------------------------------------
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with
                        > the
                        > > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                        > > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be
                        > submitted
                        > > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news
                        > and
                        > > > > information company. Any views expressed in this message are
                        > those of
                        > > > > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically
                        > states them
                        > > > > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ------------------------------------
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with
                        > the
                        > > > > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                        > > > > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be
                        > submitted
                        > > > > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ------------------------------------
                        > >
                        > > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                        > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                        > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                        > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
                        > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
                        > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
                        > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                        > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                        > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                        > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
                        > information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of
                        > the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them
                        > to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                        > Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                        > http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                        > under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >




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

                        Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                        Yahoo! Groups Links




                        This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                      • Jo
                        Hi Misha, In line below. ... We should rectify that off list! ... In my opinion it s important to understand what the states themselves think. Whether you or I
                        Message 11 of 12 , Sep 13 6:44 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Misha,

                          In line below.


                          --- In newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com, misha.wolf@... wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi Jo,
                          >
                          > Long time no see
                          We should rectify that off list!

                          >
                          > Consider Yugoslavia. Constituent republics peeled away, one after the other, but the Alpha-2 code "YU" was retained till (alomost) the end. Was each instance of "Yugoslavia" the same as the one before? Was "Yugoslavia" without Croatia the same country as "Yugoslavia" with Croatia?

                          In my opinion it's important to understand what the states themselves think. Whether you or I think it's the same country is probably not as important as whether the country considers itself the continuation of the earlier entity or not. There are numerous examples such as the YU example you quote where despite the loss or gain of territory, population etc. the country considers itself to be the same country. [On the other hand, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia neither state continued to use the old alpha or numeric codes - presumably indicating that neither country considered itself to be the successor]

                          We may possibly agree that whether it is the same or not depends on your point of view and what attributes are the defining characteristics of sameness or difference. Either way, it would appear that the alpha code system in ISO-3166 has different criteria to the numeric codes for judging sameness.

                          >
                          > Any analysis of indicators, eg territory, population, GDP, breakdown of state expenditure, etc, must take into account that a country before such a merger/de-merger is not the same country as the one(s) before/after the merger/de-merger.

                          I agree, but is only one set of characteristics that you might consider. Does it have the same executive, the same flag, the same diplomatic representatives overseas would be another - it depends on the application, doesn't it?

                          >
                          > The fact that many characteristics survive the merger/de-merger does not mean that an entity after the merger/de-merger is the same entity as a similarly-named one before the merger/de-merger.

                          Nor is it necessarily the case that it is not the same.

                          >
                          > In Thomson Reuters we assign Permanent Identifiers to all concepts (including entities) we consider useful, and link these using typed relationships. In our system, the "old" Sudan and the "new" Sudan have different PermIDs.

                          That's interesting, but is presumably based on the fact that a lot of your customers track indicators of that kind, and makes their analysis easier in some respect or another. It presumably makes it harder to track, say, voting patterns at the UN General Assembly.

                          I sometimes quote a remark that I attribute to you, from many moons ago, which is that you can't talk about metadata, you have to talk about metadata for some purpose. Which I have interpreted as meaning that there is no single objective stance from which you can make a judgment.

                          According to that, Sudan is both the same country as it was before and a different country, depending on the purpose for which you are making the assessment.

                          Coming back to your original statement: "In case someone thinks that the continuity of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are mistaken. " For reasons that I hope are clear and make some kind of sense my point is that this might be better put as "In case someone thinks that the continuity of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, whether they are mistaken or not depends on whether the maintenance policy of the naming scheme is consistent with their intended purpose. "

                          If you're interested in doing assessments that involve territorial extent it would be better to use the numeric scheme, if you're interested in doing assessments that are primarily political then the alpha schemes may be better. Either way, be careful.

                          That's all
                          thanks
                          Jo

                          >
                          > Regards,
                          > Misha
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jo
                          > Sent: 12 September 2011 16:49
                          > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                          >
                          > Hi Misha
                          >
                          > re "In case someone thinks that the continuity
                          > of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are mistaken. " - I'm intrigued.
                          >
                          > Though the territorial extent of the old Sudan has changed, most other aspects of it have not, for example afaik it is still the same geopolitical actor, continues to have representation abroad in the same form etc. I think the numeric code has changed because the territorial limits have changed and that the ISO alpha code has remained the same because the (continuing) government of Sudan did not request a change to its code.
                          >
                          > A similar thing happened for Germany, I believe, upon the integration of the former DDR. That doesn't mean, afaik, that DE represents a different country (qua geopolitical actor) before and after the change of numeric code, though likewise its territorial extend did change.
                          >
                          > Contrariwise, a while ago, Zaire became the Democratic Republic of the Congo and changed its code from ZR to CD but kept its numeric code of 180.
                          >
                          > A good illustration of the need to understand the policies behind code maintenance, and in this case possibly a good illustration of the need for clarity in distinguishing a geopolitical actor and its associated territory. You can take a skiing holiday in France (location) and make a treaty with France (geopolitical actor) but you can't make a treaty with a location nor take a skiing holiday in a geopolitical actor.
                          >
                          > For some applications it may be useful to distinguish SDN pre-9th July 2011 from SDN post-9th July - perhaps one should use a different alias from within NewsML?
                          >
                          > Likewise, by analogy, for Philippe's question. Ideally he'd have a chronology of the introduction of and deprecation of codes, of course.
                          >
                          > Best
                          > Jo
                          >
                        • misha.wolf@thomsonreuters.com
                          It s important to keep in mind the name of ISO 3166: Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions . Note the word names . When
                          Message 12 of 12 , Sep 13 9:27 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            It's important to keep in mind the name of ISO 3166: "Codes for the
                            representation of names of countries and their subdivisions". Note the
                            word "names". When Burma changed its name to Myanmar, the country's ISO
                            3166-1 Alpha-2 code was changed from BK to MM. I think that most would
                            agree that Burma and Myanmar are the same country. So one can't
                            determine from the Alpha codes whether a country X existing today is the
                            same country as country Y existing yesterday.

                            The ISO 3166 Numeric codes, OTOH, are allocated by the UN. The UN is
                            (mostly) consistent in assigning a new Numeric code if (and only if) a
                            country's territory has changed substantially. So, for example, when
                            German re-unification took place, both old Numeric codes were "retired"
                            and replaced by a new Numeric code. The ISO 3166-1 Alpha codes were
                            retained.

                            <quote from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49chang.htm>
                            f/ Through accession of the German Democratic Republic (numerical code
                            278) to the Federal Republic of Germany (numerical code 280), with
                            effect from 3 October 1990, the two German States have united to form
                            one sovereign State. As from the date of unification, the Federal
                            Republic of Germany acts in the United Nations under the designation
                            "Germany" (numerical code 276).
                            </quote>

                            Misha


                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                            Behalf Of Jo
                            Sent: 13 September 2011 14:45
                            To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2 entities

                            Hi Misha,

                            In line below.


                            --- In newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com, misha.wolf@... wrote:
                            >
                            > Hi Jo,
                            >
                            > Long time no see
                            We should rectify that off list!

                            >
                            > Consider Yugoslavia. Constituent republics peeled away, one after the
                            other, but the Alpha-2 code "YU" was retained till (alomost) the end.
                            Was each instance of "Yugoslavia" the same as the one before? Was
                            "Yugoslavia" without Croatia the same country as "Yugoslavia" with
                            Croatia?

                            In my opinion it's important to understand what the states themselves
                            think. Whether you or I think it's the same country is probably not as
                            important as whether the country considers itself the continuation of
                            the earlier entity or not. There are numerous examples such as the YU
                            example you quote where despite the loss or gain of territory,
                            population etc. the country considers itself to be the same country. [On
                            the other hand, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and
                            Slovakia neither state continued to use the old alpha or numeric codes -
                            presumably indicating that neither country considered itself to be the
                            successor]

                            We may possibly agree that whether it is the same or not depends on your
                            point of view and what attributes are the defining characteristics of
                            sameness or difference. Either way, it would appear that the alpha code
                            system in ISO-3166 has different criteria to the numeric codes for
                            judging sameness.

                            >
                            > Any analysis of indicators, eg territory, population, GDP, breakdown
                            of state expenditure, etc, must take into account that a country before
                            such a merger/de-merger is not the same country as the one(s)
                            before/after the merger/de-merger.

                            I agree, but is only one set of characteristics that you might consider.
                            Does it have the same executive, the same flag, the same diplomatic
                            representatives overseas would be another - it depends on the
                            application, doesn't it?

                            >
                            > The fact that many characteristics survive the merger/de-merger does
                            not mean that an entity after the merger/de-merger is the same entity as
                            a similarly-named one before the merger/de-merger.

                            Nor is it necessarily the case that it is not the same.

                            >
                            > In Thomson Reuters we assign Permanent Identifiers to all concepts
                            (including entities) we consider useful, and link these using typed
                            relationships. In our system, the "old" Sudan and the "new" Sudan have
                            different PermIDs.

                            That's interesting, but is presumably based on the fact that a lot of
                            your customers track indicators of that kind, and makes their analysis
                            easier in some respect or another. It presumably makes it harder to
                            track, say, voting patterns at the UN General Assembly.

                            I sometimes quote a remark that I attribute to you, from many moons ago,
                            which is that you can't talk about metadata, you have to talk about
                            metadata for some purpose. Which I have interpreted as meaning that
                            there is no single objective stance from which you can make a judgment.

                            According to that, Sudan is both the same country as it was before and a
                            different country, depending on the purpose for which you are making the
                            assessment.

                            Coming back to your original statement: "In case someone thinks that the
                            continuity of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity,
                            they are mistaken. " For reasons that I hope are clear and make some
                            kind of sense my point is that this might be better put as "In case
                            someone thinks that the continuity of the country's name indicates a
                            continuity of identity, whether they are mistaken or not depends on
                            whether the maintenance policy of the naming scheme is consistent with
                            their intended purpose. "

                            If you're interested in doing assessments that involve territorial
                            extent it would be better to use the numeric scheme, if you're
                            interested in doing assessments that are primarily political then the
                            alpha schemes may be better. Either way, be careful.

                            That's all
                            thanks
                            Jo

                            >
                            > Regards,
                            > Misha
                            >
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On
                            Behalf Of Jo
                            > Sent: 12 September 2011 16:49
                            > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: [newsml-g2] Re: Relationship from concept to non G2 entities
                            >
                            > Hi Misha
                            >
                            > re "In case someone thinks that the continuity
                            > of the country's name indicates a continuity of identity, they are
                            mistaken. " - I'm intrigued.
                            >
                            > Though the territorial extent of the old Sudan has changed, most other
                            aspects of it have not, for example afaik it is still the same
                            geopolitical actor, continues to have representation abroad in the same
                            form etc. I think the numeric code has changed because the territorial
                            limits have changed and that the ISO alpha code has remained the same
                            because the (continuing) government of Sudan did not request a change to
                            its code.
                            >
                            > A similar thing happened for Germany, I believe, upon the integration
                            of the former DDR. That doesn't mean, afaik, that DE represents a
                            different country (qua geopolitical actor) before and after the change
                            of numeric code, though likewise its territorial extend did change.
                            >
                            > Contrariwise, a while ago, Zaire became the Democratic Republic of the
                            Congo and changed its code from ZR to CD but kept its numeric code of
                            180.
                            >
                            > A good illustration of the need to understand the policies behind code
                            maintenance, and in this case possibly a good illustration of the need
                            for clarity in distinguishing a geopolitical actor and its associated
                            territory. You can take a skiing holiday in France (location) and make a
                            treaty with France (geopolitical actor) but you can't make a treaty with
                            a location nor take a skiing holiday in a geopolitical actor.
                            >
                            > For some applications it may be useful to distinguish SDN pre-9th July
                            2011 from SDN post-9th July - perhaps one should use a different alias
                            from within NewsML?
                            >
                            > Likewise, by analogy, for Philippe's question. Ideally he'd have a
                            chronology of the introduction of and deprecation of codes, of course.
                            >
                            > Best
                            > Jo
                            >




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

                            Any member of this IPTC moderated Yahoo group must comply with the
                            Intellectual Property Policy of the IPTC, available at
                            http://www.iptc.org/goto/ipp. Any posting is assumed to be submitted
                            under the conditions of this IPTC IP Policy.
                            Yahoo! Groups Links




                            This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.