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

Re: [newsml-g2] Request for clarification about the "see also" item relation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.