IEV data anomaly (20201217): "See/Voir ..." content in SOURCE

[ronaldtse]

Processing term 723-10-18 (eng)... extract_source_clause 'see 723-10-19'
[RAW] see 723-10-19
{:source_ref=>"IEV", :clause=>"723-10-19", :relation_type=>{:type=>:related}}
Processing term 723-10-18 (fra)... extract_source_clause 'voir 723-10-19'
[RAW] voir 723-10-19

Processing term 722-01-15 (eng)... [FAILED TO PARSE SOURCE] See the Volume V of the CCITT Red Book, 1960, pages 74 and 75.
extract_source_clause 'See the Volume V of the CCITT Red Book, 1960, pages 74 and 75.'
[RAW] See the Volume V of the CCITT Red Book, 1960, pages 74 and 75.
{:source_ref=>"See the Volume V of the CCITT Red Book, 1960, pages 74 and 75.",
 :clause=>nil,
 :relation_type=>{:type=>:related}}
Processing term 722-01-15 (fra)... [FAILED TO PARSE SOURCE] Voir Tome V du Livre Rouge du CCITT,1960, pages 74 et 75.
extract_source_clause 'Voir Tome V du Livre Rouge du CCITT,1960, pages 74 et 75.'
[RAW] Voir Tome V du Livre Rouge du CCITT,1960, pages 74 et 75.
{:source_ref=>"Voir Tome V du Livre Rouge du CCITT,1960, pages 74 et 75.",
 :clause=>nil,
 :relation_type=>{:type=>:related}}

Need some universal treatment to "see/voir".

[ronaldtse]

This is a more generic question about “see/voir” seen in the SOURCE fields.

For example, 723-10-18 (eng) writes "see 723-10-19”.

It seems that it could mean one of:

1. the definition of 723-10-18 is identical to that of 723-10-19.
2. the reader should refer to 723-10-19 for further information.
3. the entry is related to 723-10-19.

Right now I’m thinking that “see/voir” means 2 or 3, but not 1. Is this correct?

Wondering if there is a consistent meaning that can be applied to the “see/voir” fields...

Sought for IEC clarification.

[ronaldtse]

From IEC:

The problem in 723-10-18 is a problem of incorrect data capture (whenever that happened). As you can see from the following screen shot, the “(see …)” is part of the note and is not a source:

I searched and found 67 instances of “see” in the source field. I suspect that none is correct. I’ll need time to correct them all – certainly not today. For today, I corrected just 723-10-18 en and fr.

This means that the "(see ...)" part was originally part of the NOTE but when entered into the database, it went into the SOURCE field instead. Therefore this requires manual fixing at the IEV database.

FYI it is permissible to use “SEE: “ / ”VOIR: “ to prefix a reference to a non-verbal representation, as shown in the following examples from ISO 10241-1:2011:

[SOURCE: ISO 10241-1:2011, 6.5]

[SOURCE: ISO 10241-1:2011, A.1.2]

This is why I need to look at each of the instances to determine how to correct each of them. I note that some instances refer to figures, e.g. “see fig. 4.8” in 466-09-08, and I suspect that they call into this second category.

This means that "SEE: {source}" (for a non-verbal representation, such as an image or video) is an additional relationship supported by ISO 10241-1:2011, at the same level as "[SOURCE:...]". We should support this. This should map to a "related" relationship.

[ronaldtse]

We will wait for source data to be corrected.