Re: [jats-list] <bio>: Contained in <contrib> or in <back> - which is better?

Subject: Re: [jats-list] <bio>: Contained in <contrib> or in <back> - which is better?
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:20:09 -0500

I would add to what Jeff says that (just speaking personally here) I am sorry whenever I hear about vendor requirements such as this driving tagging decisions.

I mean, I understand why it happens and I'm sympathetic. (Nor would I presume to second-guess what is essentially a business decision.) Yet on the other hand, the whole idea of tagging in XML is so that the format of your data is not forever locked into the particular requirements of one of the many applications to which it may be given over its lifetime.

In this case, if the vendor really can't manipulate the data on their end (given an ID/IDREF relation, a simple transformation can move a bio from front matter to back or the other way again), it might be worth considering whether you couldn't maintain the data the way you want, in an arrangement optimized for your own processes, and run it through such a filter to rearrange it to the vendor's requirements for delivery to them.

I admit that (a) this might be a lot to take on for something so minimal as this, and also (b) that it can get complicated, for example if your interchange with your vendor goes both ways.

Yet the underlying idea remains -- and is what gives bone and muscle to Jeff's principle that you should tag it as "what it is". Plus, the fact that such transformations become easier to engineer after the first one -- while also making hitherto impractical things possible and even easy (such as -- oops! -- evolving to new vendor requirements without upsetting your own systems?) -- is a big part of what rewards the investment in this knowhow, as in the XML source code itself.

Just $0.02 from me, in no official capacity whatsoever. :-)


On 2/1/2012 4:52 PM, Beck, Jeff (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E] wrote:
Hi Bendte,

I enjoyed your presentation during the opening session at JATS-Con last
year. I hope to see you again in the fall.

I agree with you to not cave in to sticking your<bio>  in<author-notes>.
If it is a bio, use<bio>.

The first general advice I would give about making tagging decisions is don't throw away any information if you don't have to. And I would consider which<bio> goes with which<contrib> to be important information.

Using an ID/IDREF between<contrib>  and<bio>  will make them just as
related (or relatable) as if<bio>  was a child of<contrib>.

I'd suggest that if your vendor can handle<bio>  in the<back>  and display
them in a way that you are satisfied with (including moving where you want
them wrt the displayed contribs or at least building a link), you are safe
to not insist on<bio>  being a child of<contrib>.

It is ok to "give in" to their tagging suggestion as long as you get what
you really want - an explicit relationship between the contrib and bio in
the XML and rendered document.


On 2/1/12 3:49 PM, "Bendte Fagge"<bfagge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I am fairly new to this list and also fairly new to full-text XML (many of
our journal titles are moving to full-text XML/HTML display this year).

Our online vendor does not provide great support for display of the<bio>
element. Our vendor suggested that we use the element<author-notes>, but
I feel that the content we want to place in<bio>  fits the definition of
the<bio>  element better than the<author-notes>  element. (We mainly
publish humanities journals that contain author bios.)

So, our vendor suggested that we place the<bio>  tag within<back>.
However, it seems like it would be best to keep the<bio>  element within
<contrib>, especially for multiple authors.

If we do end up placing<bio>  within<back>, I'm wondering if it would be
wise to use the id and rid attributes to connect a<contrib>  to a<bio>
since we often have multiple contributors.

I was wondering if anyone else has experienced this and what advice you
might have about making tagging decisions.

-- ====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================

Current Thread