Broaden the Example with ceterms:codedNotation

[jeannekitchens]

Definition: Set of alpha-numeric symbols as defined by the body responsible for this resource that uniquely identifies this resource and supports its discovery and use. Comment: Examples include the alpha-numeric code "CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSA.CED.A.2" identifying a node in the U.S. Common Core State Standards on creating equations in algebra, or, the code "8021" in the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) for identifying the occupational context for "Offices and Clinics of Dentists". Usage Note: For identifiers that come from a recognized identification scheme use the specific property for that identifier type, such as ceterms:opeID, ceterms:ncesID, ceterms:leiCode, etc., or use ceterms:identifier so that the identification schema can be named.

Change the comment to: Examples include the subject and prefix for a course number "ENG101", alpha-numeric code "CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSA.CED.A.2" identifying a node in the U.S. Common Core State Standards on creating equations in algebra, or, the code "8021" in the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) for identifying the occupational context for "Offices and Clinics of Dentists"

[siuc-nate]

I would change the examples to ones we actually encounter (I haven't seen us use common core codes anywhere, nor have I seen us use SIC codes - how do those relate to NAICS codes by the way?). I would also normalize the structure for readability and trim down the verbosity, as there is no need to define what exactly each code is a code for. Maybe something like:

Examples include course codes (e.g., "ENG101"), US Standard Occupation Codes (e.g., "31-9091"), North American Industry Classification System codes (e.g., "236117"), or any other bespoke code used by the provider of the resource to identify it.

[philbarker]

TBH, I don't think the examples are necessary, and may be misleading because (for example) the codedNotation property should only be used for US SOC codes when publishing the US SOC classification scheme. For most cases people should be using occupationType.

[siuc-nate]

I think this issue came up because someone was asking why course code (of the "ENG101" variety, not the CIP variety) wasn't listed in the examples. Does that sound right @jeannekitchens ?

[philbarker]

I think a better way to phrase any example would be "Examples include local resource identifiers such as ENG101, and those used within classification schemes, competency frameworks etc."

[philbarker]

@jeannekitchens are you an Deb happy with that reduced comment?

[stuartasutton]

I think Phil's solution is OK. As the person who introduced the concept back in ASN and subsequently here, I'd only point out that the distinction between a coded notation and any other notation was that it was humanly decipherable (by those in the know)--e.g., Eng101 is humanly decipherable in a higher ed context and CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSA.CED.A.2 in a US K-12. This mirrored the faceting notion in formal thesaurus construction. But, if the need for this somewhat subtle distinction is not deemed sufficiently valuable, then ignoring it makes sense. I'd bet, at this time, that if we looked at the extension of that property in the registry, we'd discover that the values range from the undecipherable to the decipherable.

[siuc-nate]

Proposal:

URI: ceterms:codedNotation Remove Comment: Examples include the alpha-numeric code "CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSA.CED.A.2" identifying a node in the U.S. Common Core State Standards on creating equations in algebra, or, the code "8021" in the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) for identifying the occupational context for "Offices and Clinics of Dentists". Add Comment: Examples include course codes (e.g., "ENG101"), US Standard Occupation Codes (e.g., "31-9091"), North American Industry Classification System codes (e.g., "236117"), or any other bespoke code used by the provider of the resource to identify it.

[stuartasutton]

Sorry to chime in, but "...or any other bespoke code used by the provider of the resource to identify it" doesn't fit since it opens the door "to any other bespoke code" whether humanly decipherable (by those in the know) or not. "Coded notation" refers to a system of symbols, abbreviations, or other shorthand forms used to represent complex information or concepts in a simplified, often highly structured way. The Common Core example (CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.HSA.CED.A.2) is really appropriate because it screams decipherable and is also a part of K-12 frameworks in the US which you will encounter if you have not already.

[philbarker]

@stuartasutton sorry, but I think we may in practice already have departed from the intent that a codedNotation be "humanly decipherable" and used it for more general local identifiers. I know it is frustrating when that sort of nuance gets lost, but since (AFAIK) that intent isn't mentioned in the definition or documentation I think it was inevitable.

[stuartasutton]

Yup...