search

relaton / relaton-bipm

MIT License
2 stars 0 forks source link

Support CIPM proceedings #4

Closed ronaldtse closed 2 years ago

ronaldtse commented 3 years ago

Procès-Verbaux of the Comité international des poids et mesures, CIPM https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cipm/publications-cipm.html

(Decisions and Reports)

ronaldtse commented 3 years ago

Procès-Verbaux des Séances du Comité International des Poids et Mesures (PV).

These are cited like this:

andrew2net commented 3 years ago

https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cipm/publications-cipm.html

@ronaldtse this link doesn't work

image
ronaldtse commented 3 years ago

We can use these:

andrew2net commented 3 years ago
  • "PV, 20, 119-122"

@ronaldtse which document should be fetched from the repo https://github.com/metanorma/cipm-resolutions by the reference?

ronaldtse commented 3 years ago

@andrew2net this is going to sound strange, but that particular resolution is this:

https://github.com/metanorma/cipm-resolutions/blob/master/meetings-en/meeting-1946.yml

https://github.com/metanorma/cipm-resolutions/blob/de6d8786a71fe02ee620f7fb1d63c35c042ed0b3/meetings-en/meeting-1946.yml#L7-L38

I think "20" means "meeting 20", "119-112" means pages 119-122, and it happens that those two are these.

I think we need a better identification system to resolve what "20" and "119-122" means.

Let me clarify with BIPM.

ronaldtse commented 3 years ago

@andrew2net so we have to manually fix the data.

For example, "PV, 20, 119-122" refers to Tome 20, which is available here: https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/57335245/CIPM1945-1946.pdf/ebdf0f08-482a-19fc-9e6d-0aced9de2c36

The pages are these:

Screenshot 2021-07-22 at 3 01 04 PM Screenshot 2021-07-22 at 3 01 12 PM Screenshot 2021-07-22 at 3 01 18 PM Screenshot 2021-07-22 at 3 01 23 PM

So we have to manually supplement the "tome 20" information to our cipm-resolutions repository.

opoudjis commented 2 years ago

https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/tree/main/cipm

opoudjis commented 2 years ago

We need only involve BIPM PV 20, we don't need to retrieve anything for BIPM PV 20, 119-122 if page-granularity information is not available.

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

@opoudjis For CGMP and CIPM fetching by pages hasn't been implemented. Each source file can have multiple resolutions. For example, https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/main/cgpm/meetings-en/meeting-20.yml has 11 resolutions. Each resolution is treated as a document. So in the https://github.com/relaton/relaton-data-bipm/tree/master/data we have CGPM20-1.yaml, CGPM20-2.yaml, ... CGPM20-11.yaml. The relaton-bipm accepted references like BIPM CGPM20 1. As I understand for PV references relaton-bipm should return CGMP documents, and for CR references CIPM documents, right? How should we treat resolutions? Should we put them into relations?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago
Screenshot 2022-02-10 at 1 42 13 AM

Yes:

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Also, we do not need the "Tomb" number anymore, as per BIPM.

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

The relaton/relaton-data-bipm is updated. See examples https://github.com/relaton/relaton-bipm#search-for-a-standard-using-keywords

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

@ronaldtse can we close this issue?

opoudjis commented 2 years ago 
<organization>
      <name>Bureau Intrnational des Poids et Mesures</name>

Misspelled International :-)

opoudjis commented 2 years ago

Right now, changes need to happen to make this usable at all for PV.

andrew2net commented 2 years ago
  • The references do NOT include volume numbers. I will not issue a request for BIPM PV 101(I), I only will ever see PV 101. Therefore, a request for PV 101 will need to retrieve a compound record of both parts.

@opoudjis what do you mean by saing "compound"? Use relation?

opoudjis commented 2 years ago

Yes, I mean either create a record with those two records as its parts, or else just merge the two records into the one file. We have no means of picking one over the other right now.

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

@opoudjis done but there are duplicates of PV 102 and PV 104 documents. The document https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/main/cipm/meetings-en/meeting-2013.yml has the same (102) number as https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/main/cipm/decisions-en/meeting-102(I).yml

The https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/main/cipm/meetings-en/meeting-2015.yml has the same (104) number as https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/main/cipm/decisions-en/meeting-104(I).yml

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

There is some misunderstanding here.

"PV 102" does not refer to two things. It refers to one book that contains two types of objects that are mentioned in the same meeting:

The reason why I told @opoudjis that we will no longer use page numbers and tome numbers, is exactly because of this.

The new format provided by BIPM provides "unique identifiers" to every Decision and Resolution.

For example, a citation "PV, 20, 119-122" in the old form is now "Resolution 1, CIPM 41st meeting": https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/d625c7216260970de3904e4979c12f0b34679e3c/cipm/meetings-en/meeting-1946.yml#L11

There is no "PV" anymore.

opoudjis commented 2 years ago

...

... I... see

So, Relaton needs to respond to requests to these new identifiers, and the editors will need to insert references to these new identifiers, even though the rendered text will presumably still be "PV 20, 119-222".

And the identifier is what? "CIPM 31 1"?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

So, Relaton needs to respond to requests to these new identifiers, and the editors will need to insert references to these new identifiers

Yes.

even though the rendered text will presumably still be "PV 20, 119-222".

Maybe, maybe not.

Locating BIPM meeting-related identifiers

There are these types of identifiers:

How about we do this:

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

CIPM decisions

@ronaldtse does it mean for decisions we need to cite only resolutions elements? We don't need to cite metadata https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/d625c7216260970de3904e4979c12f0b34679e3c/cipm/decisions-en/meeting-101(I).yml#L3 Right?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

does it mean for decisions we need to cite only resolutions elements? We don't need to cite metadata

When I cite a decision, I need:

i.e. https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/d625c7216260970de3904e4979c12f0b34679e3c/cipm/decisions-en/meeting-101(I).yml#L2-L22

opoudjis commented 2 years ago

You do not want CIPM id = 41-1946 for meetings, and = 41 for resolutions, that's nuts. The ID should be a number with no hyphens and years in it, especially if you're then going to use hyphens to indicate resolutions. And I think this amount of flexibility in identification is unsustainable and unnecessary. Your proposals are also not orthogonal: you have meeting x resolution y and resolution x-y, but you avoid the latter in favour of the wordier (and more error-prone) former.

I would instead recomment we implement only the identifiers below that I put a [NN] next to, with a consistent structure of BODY (meeting/resolution/decision) {meeting-id}(-{resolution/decisionid})?:

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

@opoudjis I'm happy with your proposal.

I just want to add that there are meetings with only a single resolution, hence the resolution identifier is just "0".

e.g. https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cg/cgpm/1-1889/resolution-

Screenshot 2022-03-05 at 10 47 14 AM

Data: https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/blob/d625c7216260970de3904e4979c12f0b34679e3c/cgpm/meetings-en/meeting-01.yml#L12

Citation format for CR

There are multiple citation formats in the original SI brochure:

Which ones do we want to keep? e.g. long form, short form, abbreviated form?

What is the proper way to display a citation of the CGPM (assume we dropped the tome)?

Or can we only stick to 1 short representation and 1 full representation?

Citation format for PV

In the original SI brochure multiple citation formats are used:

Which ones do we want to keep? e.g. long form, short form, abbreviated form?

What is the proper way to display a citation of the CGPM (assume we dropped the tome)?

Or can we only stick to 1 short representation and 1 full representation?

Citation format for CCTF (or other committees)

There is only one CCTF Recommendation in the SI Brochure: "CCTF in its Recommendation CCTF 1 (2004)”.

What is the correct way of citing? Are there also short and full citations, in case this is used in other occasions?

e.g.

Differentiation between English and French citations of page numbers

The page numbers for English and French entries are sometimes identical but sometimes different.

e.g. CIPM 1989 Recommendation 5

e.g. Resolution of the 1st CGPM (1889)

In the SI Brochure, we have to use the correct page when cited in English or French. This means we need to also provide the language for a citation entry.

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

@opoudjis I also want to add that there are two issues we need to be aware of.

The "year" of a meeting/recommendation does not necessarily point to a single year

This is from Janet Miles of BIPM:

The example you give (from p.159), "PV, 20, 119-122" for a CIPM Resolution from 1946, is the only one that is slightly more complicated - as the sessions held in 1945 and 1946 were considered part of the same meeting and the file on the "Older meeting reports" page is therefore labelled "1945, 1946" instead of just 1946.

The "year" of a resolution is often not the same "year" that the proceedings were published

https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/ci/cipm/41-1946

Screenshot 2022-03-05 at 1 48 29 PM

The year of the resolution is 1946, but the proceedings were published in 1947.

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

This is related to https://github.com/metanorma/metanorma-bipm/issues/164.

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

@andrew2net I discussed with @opoudjis and this task is for Relaton-BIPM:

From Janet Miles of the BIPM:

For the Resolutions/Recommendations/Decisions I think the following simple rule works without any ambiguity:

English:

[BODY] [Type] {number} (YEAR)

(where the number can be omitted if necessary, and the Type will be Resolution/Recommendation/Declaration as appropriate).

French (in French an additional dash is required as follows):

[BODY] - [Type] {number} (YEAR)

(and of course the Type has to be specified in French : Résolution, Recommandation, Déclaration…)

Examples:

CGPM Resolution 6 (1987)
CIPM Resolution (1948)
CCDS Recommendation 2 (1970)

We can omit the official citation (CR, PV etc.) since the Brochure will provide links to the relevant pages on the BIPM website, and these contain the citation details.

Within the notes to the Resolutions there is no need to make any changes. For example in the link you provide (for CGPM Resolution (1889)) we can leave the phrasing in the note as is “as abrogated in 1960 by the 11th CGPM (Resolution 6)”.

Can you please help make these items available via Relaton-BIPM?

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

From Janet Miles of the BIPM:

For the Resolutions/Recommendations/Decisions I think the following simple rule works without any ambiguity:

@ronaldtse I don't see a "Recommendation" attribute in the source files. As I understand the source has following cases:

  1. What is "Recommendation" type mean?
  2. Should we create separated documents for each resolution or create relation for them? What type of relation should it be?
ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

CIPM decision 101 (2012)

This is "CIPM Meeting 101".

CIPM decision 101 (2012) resolution 1

This is "CIPM Meeting 101 Decision 1", shortened as "CIPM Decision 1 (2012). The given label is "Decision CIPM/101-1 (2012)"

CIPM meeting 41 (1946)

This is "CIPM Meeting 41".

CIPM meeting 41 (1946) resolution 1

This is "CIPM Resolution 1 (1946)".

CGMP meeting 1 (1889)

"CPGM" instead of "CGMP". This is "CGPM Meeting 1".

CGMP meeting 1 (1889) resolution 0

This is "CGPM Resolution (1889)" as there is no number to the single resolution.

CCTF meeting 5 (1970)

This is "CCDS Meeting 5". As shown on the page, CCTF used to be CCDS.

CCTF meeting 5 (1970) resolution 2

This is "CCDS Recommendation 2 (1970)". All CCTF outcomes are called "Recommendations".

  • What is "Recommendation" type mean?

BIPM has clarified that "CCTF meeting 5 (1970) resolution 2" is to be called "CCDS Recommendation 2 (1970)".

  • Should we create separated documents for each resolution or create relation for them? What type of relation should it be?

I think we should create the following objects for citation:

  1. Meeting
  2. Resolution/Decision/Recommendation

For relationships, a meeting contains resolutions/decisions/recommendations.

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

@ronaldtse for documents like the CIPM Meeting 101 (2012) there are two sessions. Do we need to have two documents like "CIPM Meeting 101-1 (2012)" and "CIPM Meeting 101-2 (2012)", or one "CIPM Meeting 101 (2012)" with two "partOf" relations? In the previous discussion, Nick asked me to create one document with relation.

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

@ronaldtse for documents like the CIPM Meeting 101 (2012) there are two sessions. Do we need to have two documents like "CIPM Meeting 101-1 (2012)" and "CIPM Meeting 101-2 (2012)", or one "CIPM Meeting 101 (2012)" with two "partOf" relations?

The proper way to reference should be "partOf", and we should have separate instances of Meeting 101-1 and 101-2:

meeting-101
  contains: meeting-101-1
  contains: meeting-101-2

In addition, I think we should rename the files:

It is strange to see:

CIPM-DECISION-35-2012
CIPM-RESOLUTION-7-2012

I'd rather see:

cipm/decision/35-2012.yaml
cipm/resolution/07-2012.yaml

And the IDs, like: BIPMCGPMResolution11(2007) are very strange... can we use a better format? https://github.com/relaton/relaton-data-bipm/blob/4d3b678695f9075ce451d6a8145071cd0897d6d5/data/CGPM-RESOLUTION-11-2007.yaml#L2

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

@ronaldtse there are documents with identical url cipm/decisions-en/meeting-102(I) has identical url and title to cipm/meetings-en/meeting-2013 and cipm/decisions-en/meeting-104(I) has url and title identical to cipm/meetings-en/meeting-2015 How should we handle them?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

@andrew2net from the filenames, you can see that they are different types of content:

  1. Decisions made in the meeting
  2. Resolutions of the meeting

Should we make decision a specific type of a resolution? e.g. from:

- dates:
  - '2013-06-21'
  title: Decision CIPM/102-1 (2013)

To this

- dates:
  - '2013-06-21'
  type: decision
  title: Decision CIPM/102-1 (2013)
ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Oh, and we also have this https://github.com/metanorma/bipm-data-outcomes/issues/6 to mark a resolution of type: recommendation. So yes we should do this.

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

Should we make decision a specific type of a resolution?

@ronaldtse the types allowed by the grammar are:

DocumentType =
"brochure" |
"mise-en-pratique" |
"rapport" |
"monographie" |
"guide" |
"meeting-report" |
"technical-report" |
"working-party-note" |
"strategy" |
"cipm-mra" |
"resolution"

There is only resolution type in this list. We need decision and recommendation. Should we update the grammar? Or can we map the existed gramma types to decision and recommendation?

I've pushed updated dataset, review it please.

We also have data/SI-BROCHURE.yaml and data/GUIDE-CCL-GD-MEP-1.yaml in this repo. Should we update them?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

We need decision and recommendation. Should we update the grammar?

Yes we need to update the grammar. Could you help do that? Thanks!

We also have data/SI-BROCHURE.yaml and data/GUIDE-CCL-GD-MEP-1.yaml in this repo. Should we update them?

What do we need to do with them? The SI Brochure is a brochure, the GUIDE-CCL... is a guide?

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

What do we need to do with them? The SI Brochure is a brochure, the GUIDE-CCL... is a guide?

I mean do we need to downcase their filenames?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

@andrew2net personally I prefer lowercase names than uppercase names. However, I believe an indexed search is required for locating items in GitHub datasets.