Need contribution identifiers

[opoudjis]

One further identifier type has emerged this year, while I have been waiting on #39:

Pubid::Itu::Identifier.create(**{type: :contribution, 
  group: "SG7", number: 1000}) == "SG7-C1000"

[opoudjis]

This one is actually higher priority than the i18n of OB Annex identifiers. Fortunately it's also very easy.

[opoudjis]

... Update please

[mico]

... Update please

I'm in the middle of metanorma/pubid-core#49 right now, also there are another task needs attention #44

[mico]

One further identifier type has emerged this year, while I have been waiting on #39:

Pubid::Itu::Identifier.create(**{type: :contribution, 
  group: "SG7", number: 1000}) == "SG7-C1000"

@opoudjis Where I can find these identifiers to confirm that format is correct?
Current SG identifiers looks like:

ITU-R SG07.110-2
ITU-R SG06.146-201
ITU-R SG07.146-2

So probably output should would be something like: ITU-R SG07.110-2-C1000

But it's a good question if contribution can have subseries and part and if it can which position "C1000" should be, it also can be: ITU-R SG07-C1000.110-2

[opoudjis]

I can only tell you that these are drafts internal to the organisation, and in the draft document, there is no ITU-R prefix. You can see samples in metanorma/metanorma-itu#514 . These identifiers may not show up in centralised lists, especially because they are drafts.

[mico]

I can only tell you that these are drafts internal to the organisation, and in the draft document, there is no ITU-R prefix. You can see samples in metanorma/metanorma-itu#514 . These identifiers may not show up in centralised lists, especially because they are drafts.

@opoudjis Do I need to parse these identifiers? Or only create?
In documents identifiers it looks like SG17-C0223 but in conversation in metanorma/metanorma-itu#514 it looks like SG17-C-0223. Which format I should use?

[opoudjis]

Only create, I would say. Whatever the format in the sample Word documents was; that's the intended use of these. So SG17-C0223.