Re: [emergency] <resourceDesc> (aka Issue #32)

[Eliot Christian <echristi@usgs.gov>]

At 05:49 AM 12/2/2003 -0500, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
>Good point, and since we have not finished our discussion on #29, lets
>stick with the following for now:
>
>[Proposed]
>Human-readable text description of the resource (required).

The representation class known as "text" is specifically
defined as being "human-readable", as distinct from other
classes such as "code". So, to say "human-readable text"
is redundant--rather like saying "numeric number".

Also, if you look at the way definitions are constructed,
the focus starts with the actual object (here "text"),
rather than a function the object performs (here,
"description").

For these reasons, and to parallel the way all other resource
elements are defined, resourceDesc should be defined as:

   The text describing the content of the resource file.

Now, I am no longer clear whether this text is meant to describe
the "resource file" (e.g., "photo of the kidnapped child") or
the "resource" itself (e.g., "10 year old child with blond hair").

Personally, I think it makes sense to have a description of the
content here--something that is a text substitute for the file
rather than an adjunct to the file. However, if the text is meant
to describe the resource file, then the definition would be:

   The text describing the resource file.

Eliot

>On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 00:28, Art Botterell wrote:
> > I agree with your suggested change as to the definition... although
> > I'm not so sure about rearranging how we express
> > required/optional/conditional.  That's more of an Issue 29 question.
> >
> > - Art
> >
> >
> > At 8:39 PM -0500 12/1/03, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
> > >Great! The word "type" was what threw me into feeling it was taking more
> > >technical, then editorial. I will add as issue #32 in the spreadsheet,
> > >and at the same time propose the following:
> > >
> > >[Original]
> > >The text describing the type and content of the resource file
> > >(required).
> > >
> > >[Proposed]
> > >Required human-readable text description of the resource.
> > >
> > >On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 12:03, Art Botterell wrote:
> > >>  At 3:16 PM +0000 12/1/03, emtc@nc.rr.com wrote:
> > >>  >Would it not be better to use <resourceDesc> as a human-readable
> > >>description
> > >>  >of the resource itself?
> > >>
> > >>  That's what was intended, so if that isn't clear we should reword the
> > >>  definition.
> > >>
> > >>  - Art
> > >>