Template talk:Concept scheme relation
From TDWG Terms Wiki
Self-explanatory name of Semantic Internal Objects (SIO)?
In the current version of the template the name of #set_internal’s first page-property-argument is "concept constraint". But reading the SIO-docu …
- “The first argument should be a property pointing from the object, to the page, and not the other way around! This is a bit counter-intuitive, but it makes meaningful querying possible.”
… I intend to rename it to "constraint of concept". Compare the two different #ask table results:
{{#ask: [[concept constraint::+]]
|?constraint defined in scheme=
| etc.
|cardinality=
}}
|
{{#ask: [[constraint of concept ::+]]
|?constraint defined in scheme=
| etc.
|?cardinality=
}}
|
… and table result: +---------------------+-------------+ | concept constraint | cardinality | +---------------------+-------------+ | ac:metadataLanguage | 0..1 | +---------------------+-------------+ |
… and table result: +-----------------------+-------------+ | constraint of concept | cardinality | +-----------------------+-------------+ | ac:metadataLanguage | 0..1 | +-----------------------+-------------+ |
Left would be a result: "concept constraint: ac:metadataLanguage" and right "constraint of concept: ac:metadataLanguage". Does it make sense or do I missing some important points? --Andreas Plank 11:49, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
