Re: [niso-sts] Use of TBX vs <term-display> ISO(1.1)/NISO(1.

On 20.09.2018 14:32, Petra Uitermark petra.uitermark@xxxxxx wrote:

Hi Gerrit,

Thank you for your thorough reply.

I will have to look at both ways of encoding terms in detail in the near future. And weigh the advantages of the term-display (easier of use in creating content) over the TBX (connection to ISO oriented content).

And see if there is a way of combining the two: content creating in term-display (but not allowing any more options of content than TBX can take) and exchange content in TBX and if a proper mapping is possible.

Yes, it should be possible to rule out plain <p> elements from <term-display> that would be difficult to represent as <tbx:termEntry>, or to define a default mapping from these generic paragraphs to something below <tbx:termEntry> (maybe <tbx:usageNote>).

Therefore I think I have to amend my previous statement that both may used interchangeably. This is only true if you restrict yourself to what is allowed in <tbx:termEntry>. But this an improvement over the ISO STS version of <term-display>, which couldnbt represent everything that was allowed below <tbx:termEntry>.

b&

Re.: your text one question: am I correct in assuming that the page-break/pagenumber index is an issue with the transformation of XML to PDF and that it would require adjusting the rules of the transformation (application) to address this issue?

Yes, it may be an issue with PDF renderings, but also with any other (for ex. HTML) rendering. If you cannot attach the index terms immediately to the words that they represent, the page references will point to the beginning (or the end) of the <tbx:termEntry> renderings, which might stretch across page breaks. It may just happen that the indexed word is on a different page. Likewise, link targets from an HTML index wonbt take you immediately to the indexed word, but only to its container. This cannot be fixed by modifying the transformation. On the other hand, the <tbx:termEntry> renderings wonbt be that long (typically), so the link target that points to the beginning of the <tbx:termEntry> rendering wonbt be too far away from the indexed word.

Gerrit

Met hartelijke groet,

Petra

-----Original Message-----

From: Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx <niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: donderdag 20 september 2018 10:24

To: niso-sts-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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.

Gerrit

[1] https://www.iso.org/schema/nisosts/v0.2/doc/tbx/index.html

[2]

https://niso-sts.org/TagLibrary/niso-sts-TL-1-0-html/element/tbx-termEntry.html

[3]

https://www.iso.org/schema/nisosts/v0.2/doc/tbx/ISO-TBX_xsd_Element_tbx_highlight-elements.html#highlight-elements

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,

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@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. <http://www.mulberrytech.com/>

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, http://www.le-tex.de

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:

https://www.le-tex.de/de/stellungnahme_buchmesse-2018.html


--
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, http://www.le-tex.de

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:
https://www.le-tex.de/de/stellungnahme_buchmesse-2018.html

<- Previous	Index	Next ->
Re: [niso-sts] Use of TBX vs <term-, Petra Uitermark petr	Thread	[niso-sts] Encoding Bibliography, Dorothée Stadler dor
Re: [niso-sts] Use of TBX vs <term-, Petra Uitermark petr	Date	[niso-sts] Encoding Bibliography, Dorothée Stadler dor
	Month

<-prev [Thread] next->	<-prev [Date] next->
Month Index \| List Home