Re: [jats-list] Confirming STS metadata cardinality

["G. Ken Holman g.ken.holman@xxxxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello, again, everyone.

May I please poke someone responsible for NISO-STS regarding the 
question I posted earlier regarding the cardinality of metadata elements?

For example, I cannot see how to put three <std-meta> elements under 
<front>, say for international, regional, and national distinctions, 
even when distinguished by std-meta-type=, because there are no 
originator= attributes to associate front-matter sections that use 
originator=. Users of the data might inconsistently derive an 
originator value from the possibilities found in the metadata.

If my guess is correct that the semantic cardinality is limited to 
one (regardless of the syntactic cardinality), then I can make a 
number of assumptions for simplicity.

Thank you for taking a moment of your time for your observations.

. . . . . . Ken

At 2023-06-16 12:50 +0000, G. Ken Holman g.ken.holman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi, folks! I enjoyed seeing everyone this week.
>
> When talking about adoptions and metadata this week at JATS-Con, it 
> came to mind that I've made assumptions from the documentation and 
> probably should confirm my assumptions while I've got my fingers in my code.
>
> Looking at a standard's front matter:
>
> https://www.niso-sts.org/TagLibrary/niso-sts-TL-1-2-html/element/front.html
>
> I read:
>
> > (in one or more of the elements <std-meta>, <iso-meta> <reg-meta> 
> > or <nat-meta>)
>
> ... and:
>
> > Any combination of:
> >  - <std-meta> NISO STS Standard Metadata
> >  - <iso-meta> ISO-specific Metadata
> >  - <reg-meta> ISO-specific Regional Metadata
> >  - <nat-meta> ISO-specific National-Body Metadata
>
> ... and:
>
> > (std-meta | iso-meta | reg-meta | nat-meta)*
>
> ... and I've always assumed that the multiplicity in the cardinality 
> applied only to the choice of elements and not to the individual 
> elements themselves.
>
> In RELAX-NG this would be expressed with interleave, but we all know 
> we don't have that in DTD-speak or W3C-speak.
>
> Moreover, I've assumed <std-meta> to be mutually exclusive with 
> <iso-meta>, <reg-meta>, and <nat-meta>.
>
> I based my assumptions on the cardinality of 0..1 for <std-meta> in 
> <adoption-front>. Using pure <std-meta> in adoption layers simply 
> avoids the ambiguity of multiplicity.
>
> Do I need to adjust my assumptions? Am I missing something in the 
> semantic definitions of these constructs?
>
> Thank you for your guidance!
>
> . . . . . . . Ken


--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/j/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @US$125 (5 hours free) |
Essays (UBL, XML, etc.) http://www.linkedin.com/today/author/gkholman |