Re: [niso-sts] index-term is not allowed in tbx:term

[Tommie Usdin <btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Gerrit — 

First, and most important, I think that at this moment there is no “we” who can do anything relating to NISO STS. I believe the original committee charters ended when ANSI approved NISO STS and NISO is in the process of creating a continuous maintenance committee. So, while we (the people who happen to be subscribed to this list) can certainly discuss the standard, there is no “we” who can make decisions about it. 

Having said that, I will respond to your comment. 

This was not an error, it was a decision, and after reading your email and thinking about it, it still seems to me to be the appropriate model.  It seems to me that putting index-term into tbx:term itself would be quite dangerous; many applications display the entire content of tbx:term as one “thing”; the vocabulary terms. tbx:entry is a grouping of things known about that term; the definition, the part of speech, the source, etc. It is reasonable that associated index terms would be among the things known about a term. 

Note, also, that the definition of tbx:term at https://www.iso.org/schema/nisosts/v0.2/doc/tbx/index.html makes it clear that it should contain one and only one term, and implies that there should be nothing else inside tbx:term. 

— Tommie



> On Nov 5, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx <niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi list members (in particular the DTD authors),
> 
> I just discovered that, despite the decision that index-term be allowed in tbx:term [1], it is only allowed on tbx:termEntry, as per the 0.2 and 1.0 DTDs.
> 
> Since I was the one who brought the request to allow index-term in tbx:term forward [2], I should have checked whether the DTD (or the Comment Resolution Document mentioned there – where can I find it?) implements this decision correctly.
> 
> The current 1.0 model only allows index-term in tbx:termEntry, not in tbx:term as requested. It might be possible to extract all index entries from all tbx:langSets within a tbx:termEntry, put them below tbx:termEntry and still be able to generate an index that contains the correct page numbers, but it would have been much more adequate to just allow index-term in tbx:term.
> 
> Is there a reason for only allowing it on tbx:termEntry instead? Maybe the abovementioned Comment Resolution Document can clarify things.
> If it was allowed on tbx:termEntry by mistake, can we issue an erratum?
> 
> I guess that, for the time being, I’ll either need to change the legacy XML converter or extend the 1.0 DTD that DIN uses. I also guess that DIN will opt for the former, so I’m going to adapt the XSLT.
> 
> Gerrit
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.niso.org/apps/org/workgroup/niso_sts/download.php/17641/NISO-STS-Tech-minutes-2017-03-08.pdf p. 11, Sect. 8.1
> [2] http://www.niso.org/apps/org/workgroup/niso_sts/view_comment.php?comment_id=683
> 
> -- 
> Gerrit Imsieke
> Geschäftsführer / Managing Director
> le-tex publishing services GmbH
> Weissenfelser Str. 84, 04229 Leipzig, Germany
> Phone +49 341 355356 110, Fax +49 341 355356 510
> gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx, http://www.le-tex.de
> 
> Registergericht / Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Leipzig
> Registernummer / Registration Number: HRB 24930
> 
> Geschäftsführer: Gerrit Imsieke, Svea Jelonek,
> Thomas Schmidt, Dr. Reinhard Vöckler
> --~----------------------------------------------------------------
> NISO STS Discussion Mailing list by Mulberry Technologies, Inc.
> EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/niso-sts-list/12499
> or by email: niso-sts-list-unsub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> --~--