Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TG2-Some terminology for Target source authority #160

Closed
ArthurChapman opened this issue Sep 2, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

TG2-Some terminology for Target source authority #160

ArthurChapman opened this issue Sep 2, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@ArthurChapman
Copy link
Collaborator

In most of the Test Prerequisites we refer to "specified target source authority" (#20 #21 #22 #25 #26 #27 #28 #38 #41 #45 #46 #48 #50 #53 #56 #57 #59 #60 #62 #63 #70 #71 #73 #77 #80 #81 #83 #90 #91 #94 #95 #97 #106 #115 #116 #118 #122 #123 #133 #139) or "specified source vocabulary" (#63 #104),

but in many of the descriptions we use "designated source authority" (#22 #28 #63 #70 #77 #81 #83 #122 #123 #139 ) or "designated geographic authority" (#118 )

From the above we are very consistent in the Test Prerequisite - perhaps we should change #63 and #104 .

In the Descriptions we are consistent with "designated" - should we change this to "specified" (we don't have specified in any description at the moment) and should we change #118 to "designated source authority"

@Tasilee
Copy link
Collaborator

Tasilee commented Sep 2, 2018

I would default universally (examples, reference, notes) to the simpler "specified authority"

@tucotuco
Copy link
Member

tucotuco commented Sep 2, 2018 via email

@ArthurChapman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK - I will change them all to specified target source authority and close this issue

@ArthurChapman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

All have been altered to refer to "specified" source authority

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants