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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Nov 9, 2012
      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.