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

Subject: Re: [niso-sts] index-term is not allowed in tbx:term
From: "Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex" <gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:34:36 -0500
Hi Tommie,

A tbx:termEntry may well contain text that spreads across page breaks: Multiple tbx:langSets with terms, examples, definitions, and notes.

If an author is only allowed to list all index terms at the beginning of a tbx:termEntry, the page numbers in a generated index might point to another page than a term is rendered on (because there are langSets between the index term and the tbx:term in a given language.

You can kind of avoid this issue by recommending, in case of multiple tbx:langSets, that people add an xml:lang attribute so that the renderer knows which tbx:langSet an index term pertains to. This xml:lang requirement on index-term would not be necessary if index terms were allowed within tbx:term.

Still, there’s some fuzziness if an index term is supposed to appear in a tbx:note that is rendered on a different page than the tbx:term.

If you had followed comment #00683’s suggestion of making index-term a member of tbx:highlight-elements, it would have been allowed in definitions, examples, notes, etc., which in my view would be quite useful.

Regarding non-rendered content within tbx:term. I think this is not an issue, and there are at least two precedents:

1. fn is allowed in tbx:term, while the fn content is not rendered in the term.

2. In ISO STS, there was an expectation to render all content of an std element. In NISO STS, there are two possible child elements of std that must not be rendered as part of the narrative content: std-id and std-id-group.

In fact, it is an innate property of index-term that it be not rendered in the main text flow no matter where it appears. This should also apply to index-term as a child of tbx:term.

But while I’m still chiding myself for not looking at the DTD closer, I think it’s not such a big deal because in most cases, the index term will be approximately at the correct position. In addition, printed indexes, although still important in some fields, are not that important any more.

We can use the model as it is now, but we’ll probably ask for what was proposed initially in the next iteration. We might mark up the original index term positions via processing instructions, just to be sure that we won’t lose this information before we will ultimately be able to move index terms back to their original locations.

Gerrit



On 06.11.2017 17:42, Tommie Usdin btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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/225679
or by email: niso-sts-list-unsub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--~--


-- 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


Current Thread