Talk:Data element definition

lots of typos

This article needs clean-up. There are a lot of typos as of 2019-02-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.1.1 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

no merge

I would not agree that the defintion should be merged into the main data element page. Writing a good definition is a complex process. I am working on a published paper that needs a specific link to the topic of writing good data element definitions. I think others will also be adding to this page as a seperate topic.

Thanks - Dan User:dmccreary

What subject is this under?

Most pages say something like "In physics, the momentum ... blah blah blah...", but this page has no subject reference. Is "data element definitions" used in metadata? or telecommunications? Context is an important part of an article. Fresheneesz 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. RayGates 01:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition used in ISO documentation

State the essential meaning of the concept.

• Be precise and unambiguous.
• Be concise.
• Be able to stand alone.
• Be expressed without embedding rationale, functional usage, domain information, or procedural

information.

• Avoid circular reasoning.
• Use the same terminology and consistent logical structure for related definitions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmccreary (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

"Circular" not accurate

The first and second example are claimed to be circular but they are not.

A circular definition defines something in terms of itself.

Those examples define the data element "Person" in terms of the real-world concept "person."

That is not defining something in terms of itself (the data element in terms of itself, or the real-world concept in terms of itself).

That is defining one thing in terms of another.

There is nothing circular about that.

12.109.151.100 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)