I know the documentation says to look at the config files for these things, but can we get them up on a wiki page for quick reference (pointing back to the generated config file, of course, for the definitive answer). Peter > On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Susan STONE <sstone@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > One voice from the technical side: too late now (media/medias etc.) but I do wish these things were consistent where they show up in the back end schemas. > > Susan > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Richard Millet <richard.millet@lyrasis.org <mailto:richard.millet@lyrasis.org>> wrote: > Also seconding conservation/conservation. Megan's original wiki page (created back in 2009, wow) supports Michael's argument. Also, SPECTRUM (which we use as a guide to CollectionSpace's functionality) seems to indicate "conservation" is a good choice. > > > Thanks everyone for chiming in! > > > > From: Megan Forbes > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 10:56 AM > To: Michael Black; Richard Millet > Cc: CollectionSpace Talk List > Subject: Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? > > Seconding conservation/conservation. The backend name does show up on the front end, and if it doesn't match the procedure name it can be confusing - a la "movement" being the name in the permissions list for the Location procedure. > > > If we agree that the procedure is Conservation, let's be consistent with that. > > > > > Megan Forbes > CollectionSpace Community Outreach and Support Manager > megan.forbes@lyrasis.org <mailto:megan.forbes@lyrasis.org> > 800.999.8558 x 2917 <tel:800.999.8558%20x%202917> Main > 917.267.9676 <tel:917.267.9676> Cell > meganbforbes Skype > > > > > From: Talk <talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org <mailto:talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org>> on behalf of Michael Black <mtblack@berkeley.edu <mailto:mtblack@berkeley.edu>> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 11:52 AM > To: Richard Millet > Cc: CollectionSpace Talk List > Subject: Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? > > Functional Working Group member chiming in. When I first saw Ray's question last night, going with "treatment(s)" was the option that first occurred to me. Even the analysis that would be documented on this procedure (well, most of it—see further below) would be done within the scope of a treatment. > > But then I spoke with one of our conservators just now and went over the data map with her (see PAHMA-1402 <https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/PAHMA-1402>), and she said that since destructive analysis was included, and destructive analysis would often just be documented in this procedure without any accompanying treatment, it would be inaccurate to call the whole procedure a treatment procedure. > > So as much as I like going with "treatment/treatments", it looks like "conservation/conservation" is the better choice. > > Michael > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Richard Millet <richard.millet@lyrasis.org <mailto:richard.millet@lyrasis.org>> wrote: > Let's not go with "treatment" just because it is easier to pluralize. I think Megan and other members of the Functional Working Group should comment? > > > > From: Talk <talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org <mailto:talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org>> on behalf of John B Lowe <jblowe@berkeley.edu <mailto:jblowe@berkeley.edu>> > Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 10:12 AM > To: Peter Murray > Cc: CollectionSpace Talk List > Subject: Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? > > I overheard Al and Michael talking about what would actually be going into the procedure, and related procedures, such as Analysis (which has problems of its own from the point of view of pluralization). > > However, they were observing that the core concept of the procedure centered on the idea of recording information about "treatments" of objects, whether for conservation analysis, or other purposes. > > So...how about Treatments? > > John > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com <mailto:pmurray@chillco.com>> wrote: > Hey Ray, > > This is one of the things that has tripped me up, so I'm quite sensitive to it. (Ran up against 'org' versus 'organization' in the authorities realm last week.) How about using 'treatment/treatments' instead? > > > Peter > >> On Nov 5, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Ray Lee <rhlee@berkeley.edu <mailto:rhlee@berkeley.edu>> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> I'm implementing the Conservation procedure (https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Conservation+and+Collections+Care+Requirements <https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Conservation+and+Collections+Care+Requirements>), and I need to give it a service name. This is the string that appears in the services REST URL, and in schema names. For example, for the Movement procedure, /cspace-services/movements and movements_common. >> >> Usually, the service name is pluralized. But "conservation" isn't a countable thing, right? So it doesn't make sense to pluralize? Like, you wouldn't say "I did a conservation," or "there are three conservations over there." In this case "conservation" is really an abbreviation of "conservation treatment." And conservationtreatments seems too long, so is just conservation ok? >> >> Are there any rules about this? Opinions? >> >> Thanks, >> Ray >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk mailing list >> Talk@lists.collectionspace.org <mailto:Talk@lists.collectionspace.org> >> http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org <http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org> -- Peter Murray Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager Cherry Hill Company

Thanks everyone! I'll go with conservation. I agree that it's very confusing when the backend service name doesn't match up with the label in the UI. I'm very sympathetic to Susan and Peter's calls for consistency. I really wanted a name that I could pluralize, like most service names. As Richard points out, media sets a precedent for this, as does batch. I think medias would have been awkward as an English word, and batches isn't right (batches of what?), although that one could have been lengthened to batchjobs. I'd say the mistake was to pluralize any of the service names in the first place. I'm pretty sure we technical folks who work with those names wouldn't have cared if they were all singular, and they still could have been appropriately pluralized in the UI where needed. Too late now. Ray On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> wrote: > I know the documentation says to look at the config files for these > things, but can we get them up on a wiki page for quick reference (pointing > back to the generated config file, of course, for the definitive answer). > > > Peter > > On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Susan STONE <sstone@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > One voice from the technical side: too late now (media/medias etc.) but I > do wish these things were consistent where they show up in the back end > schemas. > > Susan > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Richard Millet <richard.millet@lyrasis.org > > wrote: > >> Also seconding conservation/conservation. Megan's original wiki page >> (created back in 2009, wow) supports Michael's argument. Also, SPECTRUM >> (which we use as a guide to CollectionSpace's functionality) seems to >> indicate "conservation" is a good choice. >> >> >> Thanks everyone for chiming in! >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Megan Forbes >> *Sent:* Friday, November 06, 2015 10:56 AM >> *To:* Michael Black; Richard Millet >> *Cc:* CollectionSpace Talk List >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? >> >> >> Seconding conservation/conservation. The backend name does show up on the >> front end, and if it doesn't match the procedure name it can be confusing - >> a la "movement" being the name in the permissions list for the Location >> procedure. >> >> >> If we agree that the procedure is Conservation, let's be consistent with >> that. >> >> >> >> >> Megan Forbes >> CollectionSpace Community Outreach and Support Manager >> *megan.forbes@lyrasis.org <megan.forbes@lyrasis.org>* >> 800.999.8558 x 2917 Main >> 917.267.9676 Cell >> meganbforbes Skype >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Talk <talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org> on behalf of >> Michael Black <mtblack@berkeley.edu> >> *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2015 11:52 AM >> *To:* Richard Millet >> *Cc:* CollectionSpace Talk List >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? >> >> Functional Working Group member chiming in. When I first saw Ray's >> question last night, going with "treatment(s)" was the option that first >> occurred to me. Even the analysis that would be documented on this >> procedure (well, most of it—see further below) would be done within the >> scope of a treatment. >> >> But then I spoke with one of our conservators just now and went over the >> data map with her (see PAHMA-1402 >> <https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/PAHMA-1402>), and she said >> that since destructive analysis was included, and destructive analysis >> would often just be documented in this procedure without any accompanying >> treatment, it would be inaccurate to call the whole procedure a treatment >> procedure. >> >> So as much as I like going with "treatment/treatments", it looks like >> "conservation/conservation" is the better choice. >> >> Michael >> >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Richard Millet < >> richard.millet@lyrasis.org> wrote: >> >>> Let's not go with "treatment" just because it is easier to pluralize. I >>> think Megan and other members of the Functional Working Group should >>> comment? >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Talk <talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org> on behalf of John >>> B Lowe <jblowe@berkeley.edu> >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 06, 2015 10:12 AM >>> *To:* Peter Murray >>> *Cc:* CollectionSpace Talk List >>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? >>> >>> I overheard Al and Michael talking about what would actually be going >>> into the procedure, and related procedures, such as Analysis (which has >>> problems of its own from the point of view of pluralization). >>> >>> However, they were observing that the core concept of the procedure >>> centered on the idea of recording information about "treatments" of >>> objects, whether for conservation analysis, or other purposes. >>> >>> So...how about Treatments? >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey Ray, >>>> >>>> This is one of the things that has tripped me up, so I'm quite >>>> sensitive to it. (Ran up against 'org' versus 'organization' in the >>>> authorities realm last week.) How about using 'treatment/treatments' >>>> instead? >>>> >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Ray Lee <rhlee@berkeley.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> I'm implementing the Conservation procedure ( >>>> https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Conservation+and+Collections+Care+Requirements), >>>> and I need to give it a service name. This is the string that appears in >>>> the services REST URL, and in schema names. For example, for the Movement >>>> procedure, /cspace-services/movements and movements_common. >>>> >>>> Usually, the service name is pluralized. But "conservation" isn't a >>>> countable thing, right? So it doesn't make sense to pluralize? Like, you >>>> wouldn't say "I did a conservation," or "there are three conservations over >>>> there." In this case "conservation" is really an abbreviation of >>>> "conservation treatment." And conservationtreatments seems too long, >>>> so is just conservation ok? >>>> >>>> Are there any rules about this? Opinions? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Ray >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk mailing list >>>> Talk@lists.collectionspace.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >>>> >>>> > > -- > Peter Murray > Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager > Cherry Hill Company > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org > >

Ray wrote: "I'd say the mistake was to pluralize any of the service names in the first place." Great minds think alike. Even after pluralized names were widespread, there was apparently a potential, missed opportunity to revisit this during the period from late 2010 through mid 2011: "Make all services use singular form of service name for everything" https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/CSPACE-3322 On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Ray Lee <rhlee@berkeley.edu> wrote: > Thanks everyone! I'll go with conservation. I agree that it's very > confusing when the backend service name doesn't match up with the label in > the UI. > > I'm very sympathetic to Susan and Peter's calls for consistency. I really > wanted a name that I could pluralize, like most service names. As Richard > points out, media sets a precedent for this, as does batch. I think medias > would have been awkward as an English word, and batches isn't right (batches > of what?), although that one could have been lengthened to batchjobs. I'd > say the mistake was to pluralize any of the service names in the first > place. I'm pretty sure we technical folks who work with those names > wouldn't have cared if they were all singular, and they still could have > been appropriately pluralized in the UI where needed. Too late now. > > Ray > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> wrote: > >> I know the documentation says to look at the config files for these >> things, but can we get them up on a wiki page for quick reference (pointing >> back to the generated config file, of course, for the definitive answer). >> >> >> Peter >> >> On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Susan STONE <sstone@berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >> One voice from the technical side: too late now (media/medias etc.) but I >> do wish these things were consistent where they show up in the back end >> schemas. >> >> Susan >> >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Richard Millet < >> richard.millet@lyrasis.org> wrote: >> >>> Also seconding conservation/conservation. Megan's original wiki page >>> (created back in 2009, wow) supports Michael's argument. Also, SPECTRUM >>> (which we use as a guide to CollectionSpace's functionality) seems to >>> indicate "conservation" is a good choice. >>> >>> >>> Thanks everyone for chiming in! >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Megan Forbes >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 06, 2015 10:56 AM >>> *To:* Michael Black; Richard Millet >>> *Cc:* CollectionSpace Talk List >>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? >>> >>> >>> Seconding conservation/conservation. The backend name does show up on >>> the front end, and if it doesn't match the procedure name it can be >>> confusing - a la "movement" being the name in the permissions list for the >>> Location procedure. >>> >>> >>> If we agree that the procedure is Conservation, let's be consistent with >>> that. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Megan Forbes >>> CollectionSpace Community Outreach and Support Manager >>> *megan.forbes@lyrasis.org <megan.forbes@lyrasis.org>* >>> 800.999.8558 x 2917 Main >>> 917.267.9676 Cell >>> meganbforbes Skype >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Talk <talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org> on behalf of >>> Michael Black <mtblack@berkeley.edu> >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2015 11:52 AM >>> *To:* Richard Millet >>> *Cc:* CollectionSpace Talk List >>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? >>> >>> Functional Working Group member chiming in. When I first saw Ray's >>> question last night, going with "treatment(s)" was the option that first >>> occurred to me. Even the analysis that would be documented on this >>> procedure (well, most of it—see further below) would be done within the >>> scope of a treatment. >>> >>> But then I spoke with one of our conservators just now and went over the >>> data map with her (see PAHMA-1402 >>> <https://issues.collectionspace.org/browse/PAHMA-1402>), and she said >>> that since destructive analysis was included, and destructive analysis >>> would often just be documented in this procedure without any accompanying >>> treatment, it would be inaccurate to call the whole procedure a treatment >>> procedure. >>> >>> So as much as I like going with "treatment/treatments", it looks like >>> "conservation/conservation" is the better choice. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Richard Millet < >>> richard.millet@lyrasis.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Let's not go with "treatment" just because it is easier to pluralize. >>>> I think Megan and other members of the Functional Working Group should >>>> comment? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Talk <talk-bounces@lists.collectionspace.org> on behalf of >>>> John B Lowe <jblowe@berkeley.edu> >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 06, 2015 10:12 AM >>>> *To:* Peter Murray >>>> *Cc:* CollectionSpace Talk List >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk] Conservation(s)? >>>> >>>> I overheard Al and Michael talking about what would actually be going >>>> into the procedure, and related procedures, such as Analysis (which has >>>> problems of its own from the point of view of pluralization). >>>> >>>> However, they were observing that the core concept of the procedure >>>> centered on the idea of recording information about "treatments" of >>>> objects, whether for conservation analysis, or other purposes. >>>> >>>> So...how about Treatments? >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Peter Murray <pmurray@chillco.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey Ray, >>>>> >>>>> This is one of the things that has tripped me up, so I'm quite >>>>> sensitive to it. (Ran up against 'org' versus 'organization' in the >>>>> authorities realm last week.) How about using 'treatment/treatments' >>>>> instead? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Ray Lee <rhlee@berkeley.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> I'm implementing the Conservation procedure ( >>>>> https://wiki.collectionspace.org/display/collectionspace/Conservation+and+Collections+Care+Requirements), >>>>> and I need to give it a service name. This is the string that appears in >>>>> the services REST URL, and in schema names. For example, for the Movement >>>>> procedure, /cspace-services/movements and movements_common. >>>>> >>>>> Usually, the service name is pluralized. But "conservation" isn't a >>>>> countable thing, right? So it doesn't make sense to pluralize? Like, you >>>>> wouldn't say "I did a conservation," or "there are three conservations over >>>>> there." In this case "conservation" is really an abbreviation of >>>>> "conservation treatment." And conservationtreatments seems too long, >>>>> so is just conservation ok? >>>>> >>>>> Are there any rules about this? Opinions? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Ray >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Talk mailing list >>>>> Talk@lists.collectionspace.org >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >>>>> >>>>> >> >> -- >> Peter Murray >> Dev/Ops Lead and Project Manager >> Cherry Hill Company >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk mailing list >> Talk@lists.collectionspace.org >> >> http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk mailing list > Talk@lists.collectionspace.org > > http://lists.collectionspace.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_lists.collectionspace.org > >