Of these two, “designation=*” is the best option, because it would be the same key in all countries. On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:50 PM Eugene Podshivalov <yauge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assume that the aforementioned issue with the official classification of > settlement being deferent from the place tags values is faced in many > countries. > So some common approach is needed here. There were many solutioned listed > above, but it seems that only the following two are suitable for defining > the local classification: > 1. in the respective category tag appended with language code, e..g. > "place:RU=" > 2. in the "designation" tag > > пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 07:32, Michael Patrick <geodes...@gmail.com>: > >> you are right that there are dictionaries about this stuff, but you will >>> have to have a basic idea in order to make use of them, particularly if >>> English is not your native language, you might look up terms that you are >>> familiar with, and might not be aware that you are missing another relevant >>> term, or that the term is not a translation with more or less the same >>> meaning but only loosely connected. >>> >> >> Trade in goods and services is international - most countries publish >> their classifications in their official language(s) and script. I looked >> looked at Mozambique at random, it's 520 pages of similar tables as the >> ISCO. The one that don't publish their own probably default to the ISOC >> standard, or like North Korea, don't play well with others. >> >> (Sample extract ... some of the fonts for the Asian languages didn't copy >> properly) >> Ireland - CSO Standard Employment Status Classification >> Israel - (SCO) די יחלשמ לש דיחאה גוויסה >> Italy - Classificazione delle professioni (CP 2011) >> Jamaica - Jamaica Standard Occupational Classification (JSOC 1991) >> Japan - (JSOC) >> Korea, Republic of - >> Latvia - Profesiju klasifikators (PK) >> Lithuania - Lietuvos profesijų klasifikatorius (LPK) >> Malaysia - Malaysia Standard Classification of Occupations (MASCO 2008) >> Maldives - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) >> Mauritius - National Standard Classification of Occupations (NASCO-08) >> Micronesia, Federated States of - International Standard Classification >> of Occupations (ISCO) >> Mozambique - Classificação das Profissões de Moçambique revisão 2 (CPM Rev2) >> Nauru - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) >> Netherlands - Standaard Beroepenclassificatie 1992 (SBC 1992) >> New Zealand - Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of >> Occupations (ANZSCO) >> Norway - Standard for yrkesklassifisering (STYRK-08) >> Palestine - (PSCO) ل د ط ا ير ا ا ف >> Panama - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO 2010) >> Paraguay - Clasificación Paraguaya de Ocupaciones (CPO) >> Philippines - 2011 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC) >> Poland - Klasyfikacja zawodów i specjalności na potrzeby rynku pracy >> (KZiS) >> Portugal - Classificação Portuguesa das Profissões (CPP/2010) >> Qatar - Occupations >> Romania - Clasificarea Ocupatiilor din Romania (COR) >> Russian Federation - Общероссийский классификатор занятий (ОКЗ), >> Общероссийский классификатор профессий рабочих, должностей служащих и >> тарифных разрядов (ОКПДТР) >> Sao Tome and Principe - Classicação das Profissões (CNP) >> Serbia - Jedinstvena nomenklatura zanimanj / Klasifikacija zanimanja (JNZ >> / KZ) >> Singapore - Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC 2010) >> Slovakia - Štatistická klasifikácia zamestnaní (ISCO-08) >> Spain - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO-11) >> Suriname - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08) >> Sweden - Standard för svensk yrkesklassificering (SSYK) >> >> Language is reflecting reality, and if the way construction work is >>> organized is different in different countries, also the terms describing >>> the workers will not be matchable. >>> >> >> Yes, there are similarities and differences. The Japanese top-level >> categories make a clear distinction between the wooden structure and other >> structures that I guessed at in my previous post. But it is visible there. >> The sub-items are what provide the ability to match. That is why there are >> 'crosswalks', a means like a document or table describing a mechanism or >> approach to translating, comparing or moving between standards, converting >> skills or content from one discipline to another. If you don't want to use >> the local one, there is an international one >> <http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/>, and eventually >> someone can reconcile the local one. >> >> Additionally we are not going to add every single term that describes a >>> profession as a tag, because there are synonyms and overlap. We usually try >>> to create (not too) coarse classes/groups and use subtags to distinguish >>> minor differences. >>> >> >> Classification schemes are always a Goldilocks Problem >> <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/goldilocks> - if it is >> too simple, it will grow awkwardly as it encounters edge cases and >> exceptions, it it is too complex, it will be ignored or even worse applied >> incorrectly. Usually you will see only three levels, and maybe a sparse >> fourth. The 'not too' qualifier mentioned is the issue. The trick is to >> define the hierarchy, and then assign the term to the proper level in the >> hierarchy. I would submit that domain experts coming to agreement worldwide >> over decades have had a better opportunity to refine these aspects than any >> small set of individuals in separate language communities ( for all I know, >> the Germans may have already solved this ). >> >> FWIW, with regard to dictionaries, in the case of the misleading roofer >>> description, it was copied exactly from the English wikipedia article on >>> roofers, which is in itself not consistent there (mixes carpentry and >>> roofing in the article). >> >> >> My text was *not* copied from Wikipedia - I only work from original >> authoritative source documents, in this case the U.S. Department of Labor, >> and the example I gave was an *extract* of an *intermediate* level, at >> the 'leaf' level ( click on the Details tab >> <https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/47-2181.00> ) it goes down to >> the specific tools used: ... i.e. *Hoists* — Hydraulic swing beam >> hoists; Power hoists; Shingle ladder hoists; Trolley track hoist". Of >> course Wikipedia might be inconsistent, I occasionally use a Wikipedia >> reference if accurately gives a more general description than a more >> precise technical document. >> >> That is a fairly extreme hierarchy, but needed for it's intended use - >> supporting crosswalks. >> Employment-->Industry (Construction)-->Occupation ( Roofers)-->Details >> (Tools)-->Hoists ( Power, Swing, Trolley, etc.) ... most of the utility for >> ordinary people is in the top three levels.If I was asked to send a wood >> building 'roofer' to Japan, I will send a Log Peeler / Tile Setter instead, >> based on the tools and materials. >> >> Additionally we are not going to add every single term that describes a >>> profession as a tag, because there are synonyms and overlap. >>> >> >> There is no need for that. In my work with cross-national data, I >> reference the source hierarchy (and crosswalk if needed if I am integrating >> to someone else's work), fill in the two top levels, then add mine at the >> appropriate level. On the rare occasion, if there is a significant >> difference, I will invoke the fourth level - the next person using my >> classification then is automatically alerted why I used the wildly >> unexpected 'bark peeler' instead of 'roofer', I don't list *all* the >> tools and materials, just the two *categories* that made the >> distinction. If it is critical I might put the specific tool name.( 5th >> level ). >> >> It is actually beneficial not to add everything. Over time, the entries >> actually in the data can be scanned and dichotomous keys >> <https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/dichotomous-key/> >> created, where by asking a set of yes/no questions, one can get to an >> already used entry. I've seen school children get to exact species >> identification doing this, with no knowledge of the classification system >> itself. So things actually become easier for new users in the beginning. >> >> There seems to be some sort of perception that standard classifications >> discourage diversity, but the opposite is true. As new concepts appear, >> they can be preserved and not force fit to the existing biases of previous >> categories - because there is a way to do that without disturbing the bulk >> of the existing base. >> >> Michael Patrick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
