RE: [jats-list] JATS 1.1 request: kwd-group in more locations

["Maloney, Christopher (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]" <maloneyc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Wendell Piez [wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Kelly, Laura (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E]
> <kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>It would seem better to me to simply add and maintain a generic
> >>"metadata bundle" element than to push things partway in that
> >>direction and then want to refactor later.
> >
> > I think we're already partway in that direction. The fig and table-wrap
> > models both already allow attrib and permissions. So if we were to bundle
> > them now, it would be a non-backward compatible change.
>
> Yes, I saw that today ... boo.

You could add <sec-meta>, and then deprecate the use of <permissions> inside
those
elements for new document instances.  But I don't know if there's an effective
way
to communicate that something valid according to the DTD is deprecated.  It
does
bring to mind the DtdAnalyzer, where you could put it into a schematron
section
of a structured comment, but that's not in widespread use (yet), so I don't
know if
that would be "effective".

This discussion also makes me wonder why <permissions> is included in
<sec-meta>,
but <attrib> is not.


>
> > I wasn't sold on adding the <kwd-group> to Authoring until I checked out
the
> > article-meta model and saw that <kwd-group> is allowed. Thought I have to
say
> > that I'm still not wholly convinced it's needed, but there is a precedent
for
> > allowing keywords in Authoring. Whether or not publishers actually use
those
> > keywords is another issue entirely.
>
> Yet Authoring does not now allow 'sec-meta', with the effect that
> sections can't get their own keywords.
>
> Since (as you said) the clean consistent solution won't be
> backwards-compatible ... I'm happy to defer to others to balance the
> tradeoffs.
>
> Cheers,
> Wendell