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

Subject: Re: [niso-sts] Use of TBX vs <term-display> ISO(1.1)/NISO(1.0)
From: "Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx" <niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:23:44 -0000
Hi Petra,

The NISO STS 1.0 term-display model and tbx:termEntry can be used almost interchangeably.

One difference is that within tbx:termEntry, index-term can only be used on tbx:termEntry itself, not on tbx:term, tbx:definition or other finer-grained elements below. This may be relevant if there is a page break within tbx:termEntry. A consequence of that can be that the page number in a generated index is off by one.

Until recently I also thought that disp-formula and inline-formula are not allowed immediately below tbx:term or tbx:definition (see the TBX documentation [1] that is linked to from the NISO STS element reference [2]), because tbx:term permits the highlight-elements class of elements, and highlight-elements, according to the documentation [3], does not permit disp-formula or inline-formula. The workaround would be to wrap the formulas in a named-content element.
But if you look at the DTDs, formulas are indeed permitted as children of tbx:term etc.

So I think the external documentation at [1] needs to be updated accordingly.

Then the choice of either term-display or TBX boils down to the question whether you want markup that is organized more rigidly and that therefore needs more rendering stylesheets applied to it (TBX) or whether you prefer tagging the content in rendering order (term-display).

The people at DIN have opted for TBX since they had already used it in other contexts.



On 20.09.2018 09:41, Petra Uitermark petra.uitermark@xxxxxx wrote:
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> B orB <term-display>

Kind regards,


Met hartelijke groet,


-----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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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



You are subscribed as gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx to NISO STS Discussion by Mulberry Technologies, Inc. <>
EasyUnsubscribe <-sts-list/225679> (by email <>)

-- Gerrit Imsieke GeschC$ftsfC<hrer / 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,

Registergericht / Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Leipzig
Registernummer / Registration Number: HRB 24930

GeschC$ftsfC<hrer / Managing Directors:
Gerrit Imsieke, Svea Jelonek, Thomas Schmidt
Warum wir dieses Jahr nicht auf der Frankfurter Buchmesse sind:

Current Thread