This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "RPS Structure and Linking Discussion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Andrew Marr (talk | contribs) |
Andrew Marr (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* File and folder specifications would aid in converting RPS messages into NeES-like submissions --[[User:Joelfinkle|Joelfinkle]] 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | * File and folder specifications would aid in converting RPS messages into NeES-like submissions --[[User:Joelfinkle|Joelfinkle]] 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
* This should be left up to the individual regulators, and is out of scope for the RPS message --[[User:Joelfinkle|Joelfinkle]] 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | * This should be left up to the individual regulators, and is out of scope for the RPS message --[[User:Joelfinkle|Joelfinkle]] 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | * I agree that it may not be 'necessary' but I want to be able to use one. I have many purposes for re-use. Agencies have systems that utilise file structires and will not want to have to redevelop their systems and so in Europe I would expect that they will 'want' us to use a folder structure. I thereofre do not want RPS to define that we cannot use a folder structure and if an implementation wants to define a mandatory -or even preferred - structure then it can. | + | * I agree that it may not be 'necessary' but I want to be able to use one. I have many purposes for re-use. Agencies have systems that utilise file structires and will not want to have to redevelop their systems and so in Europe I would expect that they will 'want' us to use a folder structure. I thereofre do not want RPS to define that we cannot use a folder structure and if an implementation wants to define a mandatory -or even preferred - structure then it can. --[[User:AndrewMarr|AndrewMarr]] 11.25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
== Hyperlinking == | == Hyperlinking == | ||
Revision as of 10:25, 31 July 2009
Please use this page for discussion. Do not delete other authors entries, but feel free to comment. When mature, this should become part of the story boards and business requirements. Use the signature --~~~~ to mark your own text.
File and Folder Rules
- File and folder specifications would aid in converting RPS messages into NeES-like submissions --Joelfinkle 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- This should be left up to the individual regulators, and is out of scope for the RPS message --Joelfinkle 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it may not be 'necessary' but I want to be able to use one. I have many purposes for re-use. Agencies have systems that utilise file structires and will not want to have to redevelop their systems and so in Europe I would expect that they will 'want' us to use a folder structure. I thereofre do not want RPS to define that we cannot use a folder structure and if an implementation wants to define a mandatory -or even preferred - structure then it can. --AndrewMarr 11.25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hyperlinking
- Eliminating between-document hyperlinking would eliminate any need to specify file and folder structure --Joelfinkle 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Eliminating between-document hyperlinking would slow down review --Joelfinkle 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Between-submission-unit hyperlinking currently requires that assembly tools "know" how submission units are stored relative to each other. --Joelfinkle 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Most proposed solutions to reroute "broken" or "updated" links would require Acrobat plug-ins or server-side redirectors, which is out of scope for the RPS project -- we can create specifications, but not enforce them. --Joelfinkle 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- One alternative would be that the RPS message must include all between-document link information, so that a review system can construct the necessary links. This would remove the need for betweee-document links in the documents themselves, but would still require the review system to have enhancements. --Joelfinkle 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
