Re: [Gusdev-gusdev] SRes.ReviewStatus

[Chris S. <sto...@pc...>]

Jonathan,
These sound good to me including manually reviewed and found to be  
incorrect.
Chris

On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 01:17  AM, Jonathan Crabtree wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies!
> Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships.
> Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more.
> www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp
> _______________________________________________
> Gusdev-gusdev mailing list
> Gus...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gusdev-gusdev
>