Glossary issues

["Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@globalsymmetry.com>]

The following fairly lengthy element is a reasonably good example of the kinds 
of issues I confront when working with glossaries.  

  <glossentry>
    <glossterm>Logic</glossterm>
    <glossdef>
      <para>
	<wordasword>Log"ic</wordasword>, n. [
	OE. <foreignphrase>logike</foreignphrase>, 
	F. <foreignphrase>logique</foreignphrase>, 
	L. 
<foreignphrase>logica</foreignphrase>,<foreignphrase>logice</foreignphrase>,
	Gr. <foreignphrase>logikh`</foreignphrase> (sc. te`chnh), 
	fr. <foreignphrase>logiko`s</foreignphrase> belonging to speaking
	or reason, 
	fr. <foreignphrase>lo`gos</foreignphrase> speech, reason, 
	<foreignphrase>le`gein</foreignphrase> to say, speak.
	See Legend.]
      </para>
    </glossdef>
    <glossdef>
      <para>
	The aspect of nature determining how the mind proceeds from
	truth to truth.
      </para>
    </glossdef>
    <glossdef>
      <para>The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and
      formal thought, or of the laws according to which the processes
      of pure thinking should be conducted; the science of the
      formation and application of general notions; the science of
      generalization, judgment, classification, reasoning, and
      systematic arrangement; the science of correct reasoning.
      <citation>[1913 Webster]</citation>
      </para>
      <para>
	<blockquote>
	  <attribution>Sir W. Hamilton</attribution> <para>Logic is
	  the science of the laws of thought, as thought; that is, of
	  the necessary conditions to which thought, considered in
	  itself, is subject.</para></blockquote>
	<citation>[1913 Webster]</citation>
      </para>             
      <formalpara>
	<title>Note: </title>
	<para>
	  <blockquote>
	    <attribution>Abp. Thomson.</attribution> <para>Logic is
	    distinguished as pure and applied. "Pure logic is a
	    science of the form, or of the formal laws, of thinking,
	    and not of the matter. Applied logic teaches the
	    application of the forms of thinking to those objects
	    about which men do think."</para></blockquote>
	  <citation>[1913 Webster]</citation>
	</para>
      </formalpara>
    </glossdef>
    <glossdef>
      <para>A treatise on logic; as, Mill's Logic.<citation>[1913
      Webster]</citation></para>
    </glossdef>
    <glossdef>
      <para>correct reasoning; as, I can't see any logic in his
      argument; also, sound judgment; as, the logic of surrender was
      uncontestable.<citation>[PJC]</citation></para>
    </glossdef>
    <glossdef>
      <para>The path of reasoning used in any specific argument; as,
      his logic was irrefutable.<citation>[PJC]</citation></para>
    </glossdef>
    <glossdef>
      <para>(Electronics, Computers) A function of an electrical
	circuit (called a gate) that mimics certain elementary binary
	logical operations on electrical signals, such as AND, OR, or
	NOT; as, a logic circuit; the arithmetic and logic
	unit.<citation>[PJC]</citation></para>
    </glossdef>
  </glossentry>

It may be the case that I want more functionality from DocBook than I should 
reasonably expect.  Nonetheless, some of the features I would like, do seem 
reasonable in the context of technical documentation.  The entry above is a 
transcription of the definition found here:

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=logic

Possibly useful elements for a full-blown dictionary might be 
<etymology/>
<etymologyentry/>
<language/>
<pronunciation/>
<glossedterm/><!--wrap this around text in the body of a document pointing to 
the glossary entry -->
<synonym/>
<partofspeech/><!-- verb|noun|pronoun|... -->


Some of the functionality suggested above might be achieved using existing 
DocBook elements.  I would be happy to learn how this can be done.  I 
understand there is a problem with trying to expand DocBook to cover every 
possible feature which might appear in a book.

... To be continued ...

Steven