Identifying a commenter.

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1. Provide an ac Term Name or Label. 

c:comments 
http://terms.gbif.org/wiki/Audubon_Core_Term_List_(1.0_normative)#comments

2. Describe the defect or lack of clarity you find in the term. 

Comment from Alexey Zinovjev: "Best practice would also identify the commenter"
  -- Agree, but how would you suggest to identify the commenter, by
  asking him to add his/her name into the comment's body? 
  -- I did not find the field 'commenter'. Could it exist, it might be
  difficult to implement this idea in a flat model (when having more
  than a single comment, though in XML format it could be done easily by
  using commenter as an attribute of a comment, e.g. <comment
  commenter="{name}"></comment>)

Note from Steve: if not clarified in the term list itself, this is a possible 
item for a best-practices guide

Original issue reported on code.google.com by steve.ba...@vanderbilt.edu on 5 Apr 2013 at 8:44

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Comment from Cyndy Parr <parrc@si.edu> during public review:

Re comments
Any comment provided on the media resource, as free-form text. Best
practice would also identify the commenter.

any recommendation for how to identify the commenter?

Original comment by steve.ba...@vanderbilt.edu on 25 Apr 2013 at 3:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There are several issues here, though I am not sure if necessary to separate 
them yet.

1. Since for ac:reviwerComments we have ac:reviewer, should we also add 
ac:commenter for symmetry?

2. As to the multiplicity problem Alexey raises, that is an issue with anything 
that needs association between two terms, and we discuss that in 
http://terms.gbif.org/wiki/Audubon_Core_(1.0_normative)#Multiplicity.2FCardinali
ty

3. As to Cyndy's remark, I suggest we either add ac:commenter or improve the 
Definition to read "Any comment provided on the media resource, as free-form 
text. Best practice would also identify the commenter within the comment." The 
Notes for ac:comments does refer to Reviewer Comments as having more authority. 
The choice is already up to the metadata author as to which to use, and a 
community of practice could decide what the difference is.  I think the intent 
of not having a separate ac:commenter was to simplify matters for people who 
want just something informal.
I am neutral on which to do.

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jun 2013 at 1:59

• Added labels: Priority-Critical, Milestone-Release1.0

[GoogleCodeExporter]

yes we should add ac:commenter. The multiplicity problem exists independent of 
this and is a separate issue.

Original comment by g.m.hage...@gmail.com on 5 Jun 2013 at 6:20

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I have added it and resolved. The notes for ac:Commenter now also carries 
"Implementers or communities of practice might establish conventions about the 
meaning of the absence of a commenter, but this specification is silent on that 
matter."

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jun 2013 at 11:38

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by morris.bob on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:55

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement