As a content owner, I created a domain for marking up both widgettype and widgetname words in my product descriptions, both specialized from keyword. Authors have generally used these elements to tag names and types throughout the content. Later, I run a consolidation tool against my content to retrieve all elements based on keyword, create a single copy of each unique element/value, and put these into the keywords metadata of the topic as a pre-processed pool that I intend to use as search keys. Domain substitution means that the keywords element can contain keyword as well as the elements specialized from it--widgetname and widgettype. Although your definitions might differentiate the name as being "API-like" and the type as metadata, yet both are here, based on the same element , in both content and metadata contexts. From my point of view as a user, there is no need for too fine-grained a definitional distinction because my domain specialization and my subsequent use of the elements in both contexts effectively makes the distinction moot--the specialized elements are describing my product semantically and are providing the consistent search/relevance behavior I desired.
My real world experience bets that most authors will be inconsistent about what they mark up as keyword in the metadata vs in the content. Thus jaded, I'm back to the suggestion of keeping the description high level. keyword is just an archetype--the significant distinctions come when it is specialized to clearly indicate what it is for.
Regards,
--
Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
IBM Lead DITA Architect
11501 Burnet Rd., MS 9037D018, Austin TX 78758
Ph. 512-838-8550 (T/L 678-8550)
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot
"Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
