NOTE.KIND missing PHRASE substructure in 7.1 branch

[dthaler]

The 7.1 branch says under 7.1:enumset-NOTE-KIND:

| OTHER | g7:enum-OTHER | A value not listed here; should have a PHRASE substructure |

But <<NOTE_STRUCTURE>> has:

n NOTE <Text>                              {1:1}  g7.1:NOTE
  +1 MIME <MediaType>                      {0:1}  g7:MIME
  +1 LANG <Language>                       {0:1}  g7:LANG
  +1 TRAN <Text>                           {0:M}  g7:NOTE-TRAN
     +2 MIME <MediaType>                   {0:1}  g7:MIME
     +2 LANG <Language>                    {0:1}  g7:LANG
  +1 KIND <Enum>                           {0:M}  g7.1:NOTE-KIND
  +1 <<SOURCE_CITATION>>                   {0:M}

and SHARED_NOTE_RECORD has:

n @XREF:SNOTE@ SNOTE <Text>                {1:1}  g7.1:record-SNOTE
  +1 RESN <List:Enum>                      {0:1}  g7:RESN
  +1 MIME <MediaType>                      {0:1}  g7:MIME
  +1 LANG <Language>                       {0:1}  g7:LANG
  +1 TRAN <Text>                           {0:M}  g7:NOTE-TRAN
     +2 MIME <MediaType>                   {0:1}  g7:MIME
     +2 LANG <Language>                    {0:1}  g7:LANG
  +1 KIND <Enum>                           {0:M}  g7.1:NOTE-KIND
  +1 <<SOURCE_CITATION>>                   {0:M}
  +1 <<IDENTIFIER_STRUCTURE>>              {0:M}
  +1 <<CHANGE_DATE>>                       {0:1}
  +1 <<CREATION_DATE>>                     {0:1}

where neither show a PHRASE permitted.

[albertemmerich]

My application uses _KIND as enumerated NOTE._KIND classification (had been NOTE.TYPE, but I followed the proposal to do not use TYPEwith enumeration - _KIND will be transformed to KINDas soon an the standard will allow it.
The definition enum values in my application are defined by

				return array(
					'QUOTE'			=> 'citation',
					'CONCLUS'		=> 'conclusion',
					'FCONCLUS'		=> 'false conclusion',
					'EVIDENCE'		=> 'evidence',
					'RES_NOTE'		=> 'researcher\'s note',
					'RES_PROGR'		=> 'progress of research',
					'TODO'			=> 'open points',
					'INTERPRET'		=> 'interpretation',
					'TRANSLAT'		=> 'translation',
					'ESTIM'			=> 'estimated',
					'QUEST'			=> 'questionable',
					'BIOGRAPH'		=> 'biography',
					'DETAIL'		=> 'details',
					'BACKGR'		=> 'background',
					'ADD_DATA'		=> 'additional data'		// (not fitting to other GEDCOM structures)
				);

Besides NOTE._KIND I have NOTE.LANG. By this the user can have

2 NOTE ....any text....
3 _KIND translation
3 LANG ...

Therefore I do not offer a NOTE.TRAN.

If in a future standard version some of my enums for NOTE._KIND will not be supported, I need KIND OTHER to transform from todays version to the future version.

So far I do not offer a HEAD.NOTE._KIND as I was waiting for proposals - however I think the above list does not fit very well to HEAD.NOTE. My users are mixing descriptions, status of research, and a list of actions taken in todays HEAD.NOTE.

[tychonievich]

@albertemmerich Thanks for the list your application uses! I have questions about some of them:

'QUOTE' => 'citation', from "quote" I'd assume this was a verbatim quote from something, but from "citation" I'd assume it was a SOUR in free-text instead of structured form.

Do like FCONCLUS and QUEST mean the text of the note is false/questionable or that the text of the note is explaining why the structure containing the note is false/questionable?

NOTE.TRAN is in the 7.0 spec, and I'm not sure I understand how _KIND TRANSLAT differs from it. Is the idea that a note could be a translation of something that is not itself a note?