Template talk:EFI policy portal
Contents
General scheme
- I've just added the eight rubricas which were in the "call for data scheme", but not displayed in edited pages of Institutions, Policy processes and Policy instruments :
- Policy and/or legal framework (in the table)
- Policy instruments (in the table, since, as discussed with Tanya, it should mainly be used to list the related policy instruments)
- Functions (in the table)
- Thematic priorities (in the table)
- Target (in the table)
- Partner institutions (in the table)
- Type of institution (in the infobox)
- Field of work (in the infobox)
Now, I'm going to separate common and specific metadata, and organize the way it'll be displayed (avoiding useless lines, especially). --Thierry Daunois 11:13, 16 November 2011 (CET)
Metadata elements
Forest Europe criteria
Hi Thierry it seems there is a problem with the display of forest Europe criteria. Regards --Tanya Baycheva 16:02, 2 December 2011 (CET)
Partner institutions
Appears twice on both right box and middle table, see for example Europe and North Asia Forest Law Enforcement and Governance --Tanya Baycheva 15:28, 2 December 2011 (CET)
- Fixed by Thierry, thanks Thierry, you're awesome! --Paul Rougieux 15:54, 2 December 2011 (CET)
"Type of policy" or "Type" or "Type of template"
- I propose to use "Type of template" to describe whether we are using the template for a policy process, institution or instrument. In this revision I changed "Type of Policy" to "Type of template". Is that ok with you? --Paul Rougieux 10:41, 16 November 2011 (CET)
- In fact, using "Type of template" could be Ok, yet I do not use, in this template, this rubrica only to select a kinf of "template mode". The best thing would be to agree on a general term englobing Institutions, Policy processes and Policy instruments, and use that term. As an example, imagine we would agree on "device", in the template, the call for data would be : "Type of device", and the semantic property would be "Has type of device". --Thierry Daunois 10:53, 16 November 2011 (CET)
Semantic links
W3C semantic links don't use "has" in their description, they look more simpler to the common user. --Paul Rougieux 13:36, 16 November 2011 (CET)
Should "Publisher" be a semantic links?
It would be good if "Publisher" was also a semantic link. Then we could view it in this type of queries: legally binding processes and instruments displaying scope, publisher and related FOREST EUROPE Criteria --Paul Rougieux 10:18, 13 January 2012 (CET)
Metadata elements
linkages
"Linkage(s) to policy processes" is supposed to be "Linkage(s) to policy processes, institutions and instruments", I renamed it in the template (left table). I am now also going to rename the variable to simply "|Linkages =" --Paul Rougieux 13:16, 30 November 2011 (CET)
