search

relaton / relaton-iec

IecBib: retrieve IEC/CIE Standards for bibliographic use using the BibliographicItem model
MIT License
1 stars 0 forks source link

Request numeric stages for IEC records #59

Open opoudjis opened 11 months ago

opoudjis commented 11 months ago

The bug reported in https://github.com/metanorma/metanorma-iso/issues/1067 happened because I assumed that the stages in relaton records from IEC, like relaton records from ISO, used numeric stage codes.

Could I ask that IEC records also use numeric stage codes, instead of text? So instead of 

<status>
<stage>PUBLISHED</stage>
</status>

I request that IEC like ISO uses

<status>
<stage>60</stage><substage>60</substage>
</status>

since Metanorma treats ISO and IEC bibliographic references the same (and they are indeed meant to be the same).

I don't even know if we do retrieve any draft publications from relaton, and draft publications raise complications. So will withdrawn publications. But the whole point of the harmonized stage codes was that ISO and IEC use the same codes for stages.

A reminder that pub-iec is now meant to be our source of truth about stage codes; that is the issue that @mico is currently working on. I don't know whether you are likely to get stage names instead of abbreviations for draft publications; if you are, pubid-iec will need to provide lookup for them too.

opoudjis commented 11 months ago

from @ronaldtse

IEC does not publish document stages for documents, and we are already using their official internal feed. ISO does. We can have Relaton do a mapping if you prefer, but it depends on how much information we can get.

Well, what are the possible stages in the internal feed?

andrew2net commented 11 months ago

@opoudjis The Harmonized API provides statuses. All statuses that we get now are: "REVISED", "WITHDRAWN", "PUBLISHED", "REPLACED", "MERGED".

opoudjis commented 10 months ago

I get the following mappings, and I request: (a) that we use these in relaton-iec going forward, and (b) that we preserve the original wording of the stage name in /ext/stagename

Clearly there are no drafts here, so Metanorma behaviour by default will not be impacted. (It is looking for a numeric value lower than 60 in order to insert a footnote in documents about publication status.)

I understand that the statuses here are more detailed than the ISO statuses, because they say what has happened to the current document, rather than simply that it is no longer current. However, we do need to know that it is no longer current, and having consistent behaviour between ISO and IEC is also desirable.

Don't action this unless @ronaldtse approves.