RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also

["Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>]

You are suggesting that there are cases when there
could be "logically missing" index-see-also's, but
couldn't this be the case in general?  Also, one
person's "logically missing" might be another person's
indexing strategy.

Why should we try to fix up a "logically missing"
index-see-also in the case of an error when
we don't try to fix it up other cases?

I hesitate to add more "magic fixup" beyond something
simple like "treat index-see as index-see-also".  You
run a risk that what one person thinks is helpful turns
out to be problematic for another.

paul


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 October 03 09:59
> To: Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
> 
> It is an error if both an index-see and an index-see-also 
> occur for the
> same indexterm. In case this condition occurs, an implementation may
> (but need not) give an error message, and may (but need not) 
> recover by
> treating all such index-see elements as index-see-also 
> elements. As part
> of recovery the implementation may (but need not) add a corresponding
> index-see-also from the target indexterm of the former index-see entry
> to the indexterm containing the former index-see entry.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:53 AM
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 October 03 09:48
> > To: Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
> > 
> > Spinning out the example further ...
> > 
> > Wouldn't the resulting index be somewhat unusable? If a user looks 
> > under Carp, they wouldn't see a reference to Goldfish, but 
> some of the
> 
> > index entries are under Goldfish.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand, but regardless, I don't see what you're
> suggesting we should do with respect to the DITA 1.1 spec.
> 
> Yes, it's possible for a user to use DITA's indexing markup in such a
> way that the generated index is less than ideal.
> 
> We still need to define in the spec what the semantics are for all the
> possible markup combinations.
> 
> I'm happy to say that some combinations are errors--in fact, that's
> exactly what I've done.  So what is it that you're want to say
> differently than I've suggested?
> 
> paul
> 
> > 
> > In case this sort of clash occurs, to keep the index semantically 
> > coherent, the reverse see-also should be generated as well.
> > 
> >     Carp, ... Lots of references ...
> >       See also Goldfish <-- because an index-see to Carp 
> was converted
> 
> > to an index-see-also
> > 
> >     Goldfish, 34
> >       See also Carp
> > 
> > This is not the case for an index-see that is not converted because 
> > the index-see could be from a deprecated term to an approved term.
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > 
> > Bruce
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:04 AM
> > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 October 03 08:54
> > > To: Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
> > > 
> > > Do we have a set of scenarios in which it makes sense to treat an 
> > > index-see as an index-see-also? I tried to construct one, and had 
> > > difficulty.
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > You've got an index-see for "Goldfish, see Carp" in a topic that is 
> > referenced in your bookmap, and you generate output 
> including an index
> 
> > and all is well.
> > 
> > Then you decide to reference one more topic from your 
> bookmap, but it 
> > happens to have an indexterm for "Goldfish".
> > 
> > So now you're generating an index where you have "Goldfish, 
> see Carp" 
> > as well as a page number due to the indexterm, but it is 
> incorrect to 
> > have a "See" and a page number.  If you instead treat the 
> index-see as
> 
> > a see-also, you would get a valid index entry.
> > 
> > I don't quite understand the rest of your message.
> > 
> > paul
> > 
> > > 
> > > The question has to do with the root cause for the clash. 
> > Is the root
> > > cause a disagreement (or unintentional inconsistency) over
> > what term
> > > to use? Is it an erroneous use in one place compared with another?
> > > 
> > > A viable scenario should show a sequence of source 
> materials being 
> > > processed, an intended behavior implemented by 
> processing, and the 
> > > resulting output. There would need to be more than one 
> scenario in 
> > > order to show different ways that a clash could arise.
> > > 
> > > Best wishes,
> > > 
> > > Bruce Esrig
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:28 PM
> > > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: [dita] indexterm proposed wording
> > > 
> > > Proposed additional wording for indexterm.
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 September 26 11:37
> > > > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [dita] review of index* elements
> > > 
> > > > > indexterm
> > > > > ---------
> > > 
> > > > Issue:  What if an an indexterm contains both an 
> index-see and an 
> > > > index-see-also.
> > > > 
> > > > Proposed resolution:
> > > > 
> > > > It is an error if an indexterm contains both an 
> index-see and an 
> > > > index-see-also.  An implementation may (but need
> > > > not) give an error message, and may (but need not) recover
> > > by treating
> > > 
> > > > the index-see as an index-see-also (in which case the 
> page number 
> > > > where the index-see-also occurred will also appear in the index 
> > > > entry).
> > > > 
> > > > ACTION to Paul:  Provide suggested wording.
> > > 
> > > Add as the final para of the first section:
> > > 
> > > It is an error if an indexterm containing no indexterm children 
> > > contains both an index-see and an index-see-also.  (Note:
> > > index-see and index-see-also elements within indexterms that do 
> > > contain indexterm children are ignored.)  In the case of 
> this error 
> > > condition, an implementation may (but need
> > > not) give an error message, and may (but need not) recover
> > by treating
> > 
> > > all such index-see elements as index-see-also elements.
> > > 
> > 
>