Re: [niso-sts] Use of TBX vs <term-display> ISO(1.1)/NISO(1.0)

["Petra Uitermark petra.uitermark@xxxxxx" <niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Tommie,



Thank you for your clear reply.



And thank you for the explanation of the "backward compatible". It helps a
lot.

I actually do think I should have known this p	.



As you suggested in the end of your email, I am interested to know what the
considerations of other users are -when implementing NISO- re.:
using<tbx:termEntry>  or  <term-display>



Kind regards,

Petra





Met hartelijke groet,

Petra



-----Original Message-----
From: Tommie Usdin btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: woensdag 19 september 2018 19:48
To: niso-sts-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [niso-sts] Use of TBX vs <term-display> ISO(1.1)/NISO(1.0)



Hello Petra b



This is exactly the sort of thing this list is for! You question is indeed
welcome.





Usage may vary, so I will start by explaining what we mean by bbackward
compatibleb. We mean that any document that was valid according to the old
model will be valid and have the same meaning according to the new model. That
is, old documents will work in the new model. (We do NOT mean that any
document created to the new model will be valid to the old model.)



<tbx:termEntry> is available in NISO STS just as it was in ISO STS, and you
can continue to use it just as you have been. Anything tagged as
<tbx:termEntry> in ISO STS will work, unchanged, in NISO STS.



The model for <term-display> has been expanded from the model for it in ISO
STS. That means that any document that uses <term-display> as it was used in
ISO STS will be valid according to NISO STS. This is fully backward
compatible.

HOWEVER, if you use the structures that have been added to <term-display> in
your new documents, they will be valid to NISO STS but not to ISO STS.



I hope this helps. If not, I will be happy to continue this discussion here on
the list.



Perhaps others can comment on how they plan to use <tbx:termEntry> and
<term-display>; I do not know.



b Tommie







> On Sep 19, 2018, at 4:28 AM, Petra Uitermark
petra.uitermark@xxxxxx<mailto:petra.uitermark@xxxxxx>
<niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:niso-sts-list-service@li
sts.mulberrytech.com>> wrote:

>

> Hello everyone

>

> This is the first time I'm posting in this list, so I hope this is OK.

>

> We are considering using the NISO schema for our content.

> In the ISO schema we are currently using the TBX Term Base to label terms in
the standard.

> As the use of <term-display> in NISO would allow for a display in our
editorial system in the sequence in which the term content appears in the
standard, (the term first and then the descriptive text), we are considering
using this in stead of TBX Term Base.

>

> However I'm a little bit puzzled by the implications of the documentations
of NISO: "NISO STS loosened and simplified the content of the <term-display>
element (making a large undifferentiated OR group) and added additional
semantic tags, to make tagging existing terms and definitions easier than
using the more strictly structured TBX tagging, while being backward
compatible with ISOSTS V1.1" (Differences Between ISO STS 1.1 and NISO STS 1.0
b October 2017 Page 5)

>

> How is the backward compatibility to ISO sts be secured when TBX is more
strict than <term-display>?

> Is anyone else considering this change? What should we be aware of when
pursuing the backward compatibility with the more strict ISO sts?

>

> Thanks in advance for your reply.

>

> Kind regards,

> Petra Uitermark

> Online product specialist

> Vlinderweg 6

> 2623 AX Delft

> The Netherlands

> +31 6 40 165 050