Parse PubID with relationships (Revision)

metanorma / pubid-ieee

PubID spec and implementation for IEEE deliverables

BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License

1 stars 0 forks source link

Parse PubID with relationships (Revision) #13

Closed ronaldtse closed 1 year ago

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Some PubIDs show the document it revised. In this case we need to parse the new PubID and the PubID of the revised document, separately. When we generate the PubID, it should show the two new PubIDs.

AIEE No.4-1942 (Revision of AIEE No.4-1940)
IEEE Std 1491-2012 (Revision of IEEE Std 1491-2005)
IEEE Std C95.2-2018 (Revision of IEEE Std C95.2-1999)

mico commented 2 years ago

@ronaldtse "ANSI C37.53.1-1989 (R1996) (Revision of ANSI C37.53.1-1982)" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1389208) I'm wondering what is (R1996) here. Looks like a revision and year, but it's not 1996 year... More PubIDs like that:

IEEE Std 1458-2005 (R2010)
IEEE Std 1541-2002 (R2008)
IEEE Std 665-1995 (R2001) (Revision of IEEE Std 665-1987)
IEEE Std 771-1998 (R2009)

Upd: IEEE Std 771-1998 (R2009) https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/771/1006/

So is it "reaffirmed"? Should we represent it the same way?

This should be in #17

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Yes I agree this looks like Reaffirm. Maybe this is the short form "Ryyyy". Let's use this as the short form and "Reaffirmed yyyy" as the long form?

mico commented 2 years ago

Yes I agree this looks like Reaffirm. Maybe this is the short form "Ryyyy". Let's use this as the short form and "Reaffirmed yyyy" as the long form?

But we don't have short form for Revision / Amendment / etc, or we have?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

We don't have short forms for others... unless you can find them! :-)