Resending because the reply-to did not include the list; strange. And I'll add that Dublin Core is certainly a candidate domain for role-specific metadata. Each such community-specific domain may not cross over much into others, so I would strive to isolate their inclusion into editor pick lists by intentional inclusion into specializations in that domain. In general, metadata screams for assisted authoring support regardless of the domain, butt the implementation is very much up to the organization's guidelines about which fields and values are required. Anarchistic folksonomy is as religious a viewpoint as value-controlled Dublin Core! -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Example of blog-equivalent prolog metadata Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:47:57 -0600 From: Don R. Day <
donday@donrday.com> To: Michael Priestley <
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> On 11/6/2014 9:16 AM, Michael Priestley wrote: Also looking at the standard metadata names here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/document-metadata.html#standard-metadata-names I think those can be a definitive set of recommended names, but I would not declare an enumerated list, but rather good old CDATA so that users can supply their own values as well. The cool factor for specialization would be to enable semantic specialization into simple named containers, which helps defray some of Mark Baker's very acerbic messaging about DITA. I can envision those standard names as a domain of named data elements, leaving either othermeta or data available for as-is use or specialized new domains. I'd settle on othermeta in general just so that all metadata processors need only look at topic/othermeta rather than trying to rationalize two different bases. Let data represent structured metadata, perhaps, but not by itself compete with othermeta. Maybe the SC can suggest ways to evaluate that suggestion. And the registered extensions here
https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions Same handling, for simplicity. While this set is interesting, it is the values on http;//schema.org that drive the Web's business activities and Google's ranking engine. These will apply to conscious content word choice for authors as well as to vocabulary-controlled keyword packing in the header. I think the issues are more for authoring affordances than for markup design other than to make sure we enable specializing into the containers that are easiest to author in. Especially the dc./dc ones. In map, we've just got navtitle and data - maybe add othermeta and be done with it? Otherwise we end up overprescribing metadata elements for the folks who don't need them. Perfectly fine with that--fits the usage model I expect--one common pattern for any and all name/value properties a user or application may need to manage. But we might want to specifically add metadata specialization to the allowed specialization axes. That!! Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley From: Don R. Day <
donday@donrday.com> To:
dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org Date: 11/06/2014 09:30 AM Subject: [dita-lightweight-dita] Example of blog-equivalent prolog metadata Sent by: <
dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org> By the way, I've been using the following full-DITA structure to hold the kind of data that is normally/minimally used to track blog publishing. Some of these fields are obviously useful for general content tracking as well (wiki pages may use much of this other than feature image , for example). <prolog> <author type= creator >Michael Priestley</author> <!-- Consider whether the creator semantic merits a single name/value othermeta slug instead. --> <critdates> <created date= 2014-07-12 /> <!-- Note that golive and expiry are needful as well; I'd get by if these were all in othermeta slugs. --> </critdates> <metadata> <category>documentation</category> <othermeta name= featureImage content= generic.png /> <!-- This is the image commonly associated with blurbs, carousels, banners, etc. wherever the post is referenced. It is not simply an image in the content because it needs to be regularly identified as a feature image (and the name itself may be a key for thumbnails and alternate sizes in the db)..--> <othermeta name= status content= draft /> <!-- The content atttype may use any tokens that a local organization prefers, rather than trying to attach publishing workflows on DITA's topic/@status, (which is not even with the rest of the prolog; I think that is a potential 2.0 reconsideration). --> </metadata> </prolog> The HDITA equivalent could be simply a sequence of meta name/value elements, which begs the question of why DITA had structured metadata in the first place. That question belongs to the DITA 2.0 scope of discussion--we are stuck, I think, with using what we have, although we could use othermeta in the same way to simply replicate the author and date fields as part of a simple sequence. It would still need to be nested twice for no apparent reason, but that's invisible to the author if the XDITA editor uses a form for the metadata inputs anyway. Maps won't need quite the same data; I think that only dates and status may apply since maps are more ephemeral in a direct-display workflow. (Search results, bookmarks, subset print lists, posts by month or campaign, etc. are all throw-away lists with little provenance, for example.) The main nature of this metadata is direct publishing workflow; this is different from standard DITA where the usual role for metadata is source management (with some publishing slipped in). This may require some thinking and discussion. One way to think of the difference is to contrast the two-database workflows of techpubs (manage source/build concerns on one, publishing concerns on another outside the firewall) with cases where both source control and publishing are from a single database (like blogs or wikis) and the DITA is consumed directly by the web application, whether that be render-in-browser like Chris Depopulous's reader), transformed on the server (a la expeDITA model), or served via API to an app for data-munging or content republishing with local (non-browser) services. For now, the main question is what other metadata might need to be considered for other use cases outside the usual techpub model. We'll come across those as we step through the scenarios. Hmm, do we need a callout for specific new metadata considerations in the templates? -- Don R. Day Co-Founder, ContelligenceGroup.com Founding Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee LinkedIn: donrday Twitter: @donrday About.me: Don R. Day Skype: don.r.day Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? --T.S. Eliot -- Don R. Day Co-Founder, ContelligenceGroup.com Founding Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee LinkedIn: donrday Twitter: @donrday About.me: Don R. Day Skype: don.r.day Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? --T.S. Eliot