Re: [docbook-publishers] Review of .../download.php/28878/publishers.html

[Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>]

Thanks, Norm for your comments. I will work to address these.

As for the inclusion of Dublin Core, the SC had several discussions and 
felt it was important to drive for the formal inclusion of this widely 
adopted metadata standard. By providing the either/or option, someone 
could include Dublin Core exclusively, or use the existing DocBook 
elements, but not both. Of course, the processing of the DC elements 
will need to be included in the XSL customization layer.

Best regards,

--Scott

*  Scott Hudson*
 / Senior XML Architect/

  scott.hudson@FlatironsSolutions.com 
<mailto:scott.hudson@FlatironsSolutions.com>

 

  O:  303.542.2146

  C:  303.332.1883

  F:  303.544.0522

 

  www.FlatironsSolutions.com <http://www.flatironssolutions.com/>

/  An Inc. 500 Company/

/ /



Norman Walsh wrote:
> Well, not a review, exactly, but a collection of thoughts. No, not
> even thoughts. Opinions. Mine alone.
>
>   
>> 3. Explicit support for Dublin Core metadata
>>     
>
> This section lists the pattern names, but not actually the names of
> the new elements. What are they? Are they in the dc: and dcterms:
> namespaces?
>
>   
>> While DocBook already includes many of the elements that are defined
>> by the Dublin Core, it is not inherently interoperable with DC
>> metadata. The Publisher's SC has decided to formally adopt Dublin
>> Core metadata as a formal metadata model for info elements.
>>     
>
> I think this is a really bad idea. You've just introduced a whole
> bunch of elements that provide two ways to say the same thing. How is
> dc.date different from date? How is dc.creator different from author?
> How do you deal with groups of "creators"? How is dc.identifier
> different from biblioid?
>
> Blech.
>
>   
>> 5. Re-Defined DocBook Content Models
>>     
>
> It would be nice if the table summarized the change, rather than making
> me read the content models.
>
> I don't think the tabular presentation works very well.
>
> Nested sections inside a sidebar!? Do they appear in the ToC? Can they
> be chunked? Are they part of the navigation hiearchy?
>
>   
>> 6. Included DocBook Element Definitions
>>     
>
> I don't think the tabular presentation works very well here either.
>
> Maybe it would make sense to have a separate appendix for schema
> designers or something? I don't think the average user is going to
> care what definition, group, or module is associated with an element.
>
> Why are a lot of the cells absent?
>
> In Acknowledgements, please spell out my first name. 
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
>