[Gusdev-gusdev] SRes.ReviewStatus

[Jonathan C. <cra...@sn...>]

While we're on the topic of populating the GUS 3.0 controlled vocabularies,
does anyone remember how we originally decided to use the SRes.ReviewStatus
table?  We currently have a single row in this table, courtesy of Jonathan
Schug:

REVIEW_STATUS_ID
----------------
NAME
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	       1
manually created
Entry was created by hand; review is not needed.


I think I was one of the people who originally suggested that we do away
with the binary "manually_reviewed" column in favor of this controlled
vocabulary.  One reason for doing this was to be able to distinguish the
above case (e.g., something that was *entered* manually and should
therefore automaticaly be considered manually reviewed) from entries that
are created automatically and then subsequently reviewed.  Another reason
for creating the vocabulary was to allow us to distinguish between entries
that have *never* been reviewed, versus those that have been reviewed, but
that have been updated in some way since their last review.  Therefore I
suggest adding the following terms to the vocabulary:

2|manually reviewed|Entry has been manually reviewed and is deemed to be correct.
3|updated|Entry has been updated since it was last reviewed.
4|unreviewed|Entry has never been manually reviewed.

Comments?  Implicit in the above is that if an annotator is able to review
something then he/she also has the ability to correct mistakes in that
thing, and/or is able to delete the entry completely if it is erroneous.
If we do not make this assumption then we need another term to represent
the case where an "Entry has been manually reviewed and is deemed to be
INcorrect."  We might want this even if the assumption I mentioned holds,
because it would allow us to mark the entry as "manually reviewed -
incorrect" before deleting it (i.e., moving into the version table), in
caes where the annotator decides to delete an erroneous entry.  Note also
that once an entry is marked with term #3, "updated", we no longer track
(in ReviewStatus, at least) whether the entry was originally of type #1 or
type #2.  I don't see this is a major problem, however, since the
provenance of the entry can (and should) be tracked through other means.

Jonathan