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

Request for clarification about the "see also" item relation

Expand Messages
  • Philippe Mougin
    Hi, I m seeing two somewhat different definitions of the see also item relation in IPTC documents. At http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso I see
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I'm seeing two somewhat different definitions of the "see also" item relation in IPTC documents.

      At http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso I see the following definition : "To fully understand the content of this item see also the content of the related item".

      On page 87 of the G2 implementation guide I see this definition "The related item or resource can be used as additional information [...]".

      This first one is more restrictive : it implies that the related item is needed to fully understand the current item. The second definition does not imply this.

      Hereby, I ask the IPTC for clarification about the intent of this relationship.

      Basically, I have documents that I'd like to link to because they might be of interest, but they are not needed to fully understand the content of the current item. Given the first definition, I should not use the "see also" relationship. But this seems so restrictive that I'm wondering if this is what the IPTC really wished for (?)

      Philippe
    • misha.wolf@thomsonreuters.com
      The second meaning is correct. Misha ... From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin Sent: 06 November 2012
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        The second meaning is correct.

        Misha


        -----Original Message-----
        From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
        Sent: 06 November 2012 15:50
        To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [newsml-g2] Request for clarification about the "see also" item relation

        Hi,

        I'm seeing two somewhat different definitions of the "see also" item relation in IPTC documents.

        At http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso I see the following definition : "To fully understand the content of this item see also the content of the related item".

        On page 87 of the G2 implementation guide I see this definition "The related item or resource can be used as additional information [...]".

        This first one is more restrictive : it implies that the related item is needed to fully understand the current item. The second definition does not imply this.

        Hereby, I ask the IPTC for clarification about the intent of this relationship.

        Basically, I have documents that I'd like to link to because they might be of interest, but they are not needed to fully understand the content of the current item. Given the first definition, I should not use the "see also" relationship. But this seems so restrictive that I'm wondering if this is what the IPTC really wished for (?)

        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.
      • Paul Harman
        The implementation guide s definition aligns with PA s usage - See Also is the term we use to indicate content of a similar theme or nature which the reader
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          The implementation guide’s definition aligns with PA’s usage – “See Also” is the term we use to indicate content of a similar theme or nature which the reader may also be interested in, and/or to provide additional context.

           

          The CV definition sounds wrong; it is indicating (what in NewsML1 would be) Supporting content, or perhaps something even stronger.

           

          From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
          Sent: 06 November 2012 15:50
          To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [newsml-g2] Request for clarification about the "see also" item relation

           

           

          Hi,

          I'm seeing two somewhat different definitions of the "see also" item relation in IPTC documents.

          At http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso I see the following definition : "To fully understand the content of this item see also the content of the related item".

          On page 87 of the G2 implementation guide I see this definition "The related item or resource can be used as additional information [...]".

          This first one is more restrictive : it implies that the related item is needed to fully understand the current item. The second definition does not imply this.

          Hereby, I ask the IPTC for clarification about the intent of this relationship.

          Basically, I have documents that I'd like to link to because they might be of interest, but they are not needed to fully understand the content of the current item. Given the first definition, I should not use the "see also" relationship. But this seems so restrictive that I'm wondering if this is what the IPTC really wished for (?)

          Philippe

        • dave.compton@thomsonreuters.com
          ... Note that for the above case, there is the dependsOn value (The content of this item depends on the related item), as per:
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment

            > … the related item is needed to fully understand the current item

             

            Note that for the above case, there is the ‘dependsOn’ value (The content of this item depends on the related item), as per:

            http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/

             

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

            Dave Compton
            Senior Technologist.

            G2-Standards Technical Owner: NewsML-G2, EventsML-G2.

             

            Thomson Reuters

             

            Phone: +44 (0)20 7542 8341
            Mobile: +44 (0) 7990 56 8341

             

            dave.compton@...
            dave.compton.reuters.com@...
            mediabit38.uki.ime.reuters.com/tmp/users/DJC/ref/
            www.thomsonreuters.com

            www.linkedin.com/in/davecompton

            T: @dav3c

             

            From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Harman
            Sent: 07 November 2012 08:04
            To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [newsml-g2] Request for clarification about the "see also" item relation

             

             

            The implementation guide’s definition aligns with PA’s usage – “See Also” is the term we use to indicate content of a similar theme or nature which the reader may also be interested in, and/or to provide additional context.

             

            The CV definition sounds wrong; it is indicating (what in NewsML1 would be) Supporting content, or perhaps something even stronger.

             

            From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
            Sent: 06 November 2012 15:50
            To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [newsml-g2] Request for clarification about the "see also" item relation

             

             

            Hi,

            I'm seeing two somewhat different definitions of the "see also" item relation in IPTC documents.

            At http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso I see the following definition : "To fully understand the content of this item see also the content of the related item".

            On page 87 of the G2 implementation guide I see this definition "The related item or resource can be used as additional information [...]".

            This first one is more restrictive : it implies that the related item is needed to fully understand the current item. The second definition does not imply this.

            Hereby, I ask the IPTC for clarification about the intent of this relationship.

            Basically, I have documents that I'd like to link to because they might be of interest, but they are not needed to fully understand the content of the current item. Given the first definition, I should not use the "see also" relationship. But this seems so restrictive that I'm wondering if this is what the IPTC really wished for (?)

            Philippe


            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.
          • robert.schmidt-nia@dpa-mediatec.com
            Dpa also uses the definition of the guideline. We address additional sources which can be of interest for the consumer. We should discuss, and hopefully
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 8, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Dpa also uses the definition of the guideline. We address additional sources which can be of interest for the consumer.


              We should discuss, and hopefully correct the definition within the CV.

              Robert


              --- mobile ---

              Am 07.11.2012 um 09:04 schrieb "Paul Harman" <paul.harman@...>:

               

              The implementation guide’s definition aligns with PA’s usage – “See Also” is the term we use to indicate content of a similar theme or nature which the reader may also be interested in, and/or to provide additional context.

               

              The CV definition sounds wrong; it is indicating (what in NewsML1 would be) Supporting content, or perhaps something even stronger.

               

              From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
              Sent: 06 November 2012 15:50
              To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [newsml-g2] Request for clarification about the "see also" item relation

               

               

              Hi,

              I'm seeing two somewhat different definitions of the "see also" item relation in IPTC documents.

              At http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso I see the following definition : "To fully understand the content of this item see also the content of the related item".

              On page 87 of the G2 implementation guide I see this definition "The related item or resource can be used as additional information [...]".

              This first one is more restrictive : it implies that the related item is needed to fully understand the current item. The second definition does not imply this.

              Hereby, I ask the IPTC for clarification about the intent of this relationship.

              Basically, I have documents that I'd like to link to because they might be of interest, but they are not needed to fully understand the content of the current item. Given the first definition, I should not use the "see also" relationship. But this seems so restrictive that I'm wondering if this is what the IPTC really wished for (?)

              Philippe

            • Michael Steidl (IPTC)
              Philippe and all: The definition of seeAlso has been changed to the one of the Guidelines document: http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso Michael
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 9, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Philippe and all:
                The definition of seeAlso has been changed to the one of the Guidelines
                document:
                http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso

                Michael


                Michael Steidl
                Managing Director of the IPTC [mdirector@...]
                International Press Telecommunications Council
                Web: www.iptc.org - on Twitter @IPTC
                Business office address:
                Since 1 November 2012: 25 Southampton Buildings, London WC2A 1AL, United
                Kingdom
                Registered in England, company no 101096




                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newsml-
                > g2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Mougin
                > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 4:50 PM
                > To: newsml-g2@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [newsml-g2] Request for clarification about the "see also" item
                > relation
                >
                > Hi,
                >
                > I'm seeing two somewhat different definitions of the "see also" item
                relation
                > in IPTC documents.
                >
                > At http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/itemrelation/seeAlso I see the following
                > definition : "To fully understand the content of this item see also the
                content
                > of the related item".
                >
                > On page 87 of the G2 implementation guide I see this definition "The
                related
                > item or resource can be used as additional information [...]".
                >
                > This first one is more restrictive : it implies that the related item is
                needed to
                > fully understand the current item. The second definition does not imply
                this.
                >
                > Hereby, I ask the IPTC for clarification about the intent of this
                relationship.
                >
                > Basically, I have documents that I'd like to link to because they might be
                of
                > interest, but they are not needed to fully understand the content of the
                > current item. Given the first definition, I should not use the "see also"
                > relationship. But this seems so restrictive that I'm wondering if this is
                what
                > the IPTC really wished for (?)
                >
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.