[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Literary Work, Classification Scheme, and D.E. Dictionary
Literary Work, Classification Scheme, and D.E. Dictionary Here, schematically, is a setup for the issue I described back on March 11 and we discussed on the phone. As the user browses a registry and drills down he might encounter this schema: REGISTRY List of Subject Areas Aircraft (etc.) Computer Documentation IBMIDDOC IBMIDDOC 1.0 and related data IBMIDDOC 1.1 and related data (etc.) Docbook Docbook 3.1 and related data Docbook 4.0 and related data The List of Subject Areas is clearly a classification scheme, it clearly isn't owned by the SO for Docbook, and it may or may not be owned by the RA. I'd call it a taxonomy. Computer Documentation is a node in that taxonomy. IBMIDDOC 1.0 (for those who've never heard of it, it's a documentation DTD from IBM) is a d.e. dictionary, as is Docbook 3.1. (In both cases, the related data isn't part of the dictionary.) What are "IBMIDDOC" and "Docbook"? This is the level of sorting that I said was like a literary work (the Bible). It seems pretty clear that we need this level. But are these nodes in a taxonomy? It seems to me the answer is no; they're convenience labels for the collection of IBMIDDOC DTDs and the collection of Docbook DTDs, both of which are classified under Computer Documentation. The labels aren't owned by the RA (at least in these cases) but rather by the SO (at least in these cases). I believe IBMIDDOC and Docbook are two items in a enumeration of labels for collections of DTDs. Who maintains the enumeration? not the individual SOs; they own only their own labels; so it must be the RA who maintains the enumeration. Do these labels require registration, or indeed any act of volition on the part of the SOs? That would seem silly; they're needed in the context of the particular registry that presents this kind of view of its contents, but the SO shouldn't have to create them. Would a label be needed if there were only one version of a DTD? maybe not (it's probably a matter of taste), but as soon as there is a second, it would be. So what feels most comfortable to me is to say that displaying these labels is part of the interface to the registry, which is something the Regrep TC isn't trying to specify. In that case, how does the registry keep track of what label a given DTD should be sorted under? If it's not going to be done by hand, the reliable way is to have a field for it in the metadata. Do we want to specify such a field or leave it to RAs to extend our spec if they want such a field? Do we want to specify such field as optional so that it's available interoperably for those RAs that choose to use it? regards, Terry
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC