OASIS DocBook TC2

 View Only
  • 1.  assembly metadata

    Posted 02-12-2010 18:57
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I'm following up on my action item to initiate a discussion of metadata in assembly. Here are the minutes from the last meeting:
     
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Scott raised the issue of adding info to module and other
    assembly elements to support metadata.  Norm had
    added info in order to hold a title that would override
    the title in the resource it pointed to. Bob objected
    to using info for override content as well as
    metadata for assembly elements.  It was agreed that
    they need to be differentiated.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
     
    I'll start the discussion by suggesting that we add an info element, but document it as holding information to describe the current assembly-level element, not the element pointed to.  I would also suggest adding another element, perhaps named <override>, whose purpose is to contain content that is to override the content of the element pointed to.   So if you want a new title to replace the title in a topic, you would put that title into a module's override element.
     
    <assembly>
      <info>may contain author, revhistory, etc. to this assembly element</info>
      <resources>
        <info>may contain information on who maintains the resource list, etc.</info>
        <resource ...>
          <info>although resource is normally an empty element, it could contain an optional info element</info>
        </resource>
        ...
      </resources>
      <structure>
        <info>contains metadata about this structure element</info>
        <module>
          <info>contains metadata about this module element</info>
          <override>
            <title>This title overrides the title in the resource that this module points to</title>
            <pubdate>This pubdate overrides that in the topic's info element, if it has one.</pubdate>
            ...
          </override>
        </module>
      </structure>
    </assembly>
    Here some suggestions for discussion:
     
    1. Permit <info> on any element in an assembly.
     
    2.  Define the content of info like the DocBook 5 info element.
     
    3.  An info element in <structure> can contribute to the output, just like the info element on the root element of a document.
     
    4. An info element in any other assembly element generally does not contribute to the output, although I'm sure there are cases where it could.
     
    5.  Permit <override> only on <module>.
     
    6.  Define the content of <override> to be only those elements that make sense to be overridden.  Not sure what that list is, though.
     
    7. Any element in <override> is merged with the content that the module points to, and overrides it if the corresponding element exists in the resource.
     
    I don't much like the name <override>, so I'm open to suggestions.
     
     
    Bob Stayton
    Sagehill Enterprises
    bobs@sagehill.net
     
     


  • 2.  Re: [docbook-tc] assembly metadata

    Posted 02-16-2010 21:44
    sorry for the delay. Been a bit pressed for time. My opinions inline... [sh]
    
    --Scott
    
    On 12-Feb-10 11:56 AM, Bob Stayton wrote:
    > I'm following up on my action item to initiate a discussion of 
    > metadata in assembly. Here are the minutes from the last meeting:
    > --------------------------------------------------------------
    > Scott raised the issue of adding info to module and other
    > assembly elements to support metadata.  Norm had
    > added info in order to hold a title that would override
    > the title in the resource it pointed to. Bob objected
    > to using info for override content as well as
    > metadata for assembly elements.  It was agreed that
    > they need to be differentiated.
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
    > I'll start the discussion by suggesting that we add an info element, 
    > but document it as holding information to describe the current 
    > assembly-level element, not the element pointed to.  I would also 
    > suggest adding another element, perhaps named 


  • 3.  RE: [docbook-tc] assembly metadata

    Posted 02-17-2010 17:51
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I would think that an info element that sometimes contributes to the output and sometimes does not would be confusing and possibly difficult to explain.  I am also not sure we need an override element.  Why not assume any content containing element that is a child of a module is intended to override the referenced content.  Then add an assemblyinfo element that is explicitly identified as providing information about the assembly rather than the output (or add a role attribute or some other customization mechanism) for information about the assembly.  I think that would be a simpler markup model and easier to explain.
     
    Regards,
    Larry Rowland


    From: Bob Stayton [mailto:bobs@sagehill.net]
    Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:57 AM
    To: DocBook Technical Committee
    Subject: [docbook-tc] assembly metadata

    I'm following up on my action item to initiate a discussion of metadata in assembly. Here are the minutes from the last meeting:
     
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Scott raised the issue of adding info to module and other
    assembly elements to support metadata.  Norm had
    added info in order to hold a title that would override
    the title in the resource it pointed to. Bob objected
    to using info for override content as well as
    metadata for assembly elements.  It was agreed that
    they need to be differentiated.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
     
    I'll start the discussion by suggesting that we add an info element, but document it as holding information to describe the current assembly-level element, not the element pointed to.  I would also suggest adding another element, perhaps named <override>, whose purpose is to contain content that is to override the content of the element pointed to.   So if you want a new title to replace the title in a topic, you would put that title into a module's override element.
     
    <assembly>
      <info>may contain author, revhistory, etc. to this assembly element</info>
      <resources>
        <info>may contain information on who maintains the resource list, etc.</info>
        <resource ...>
          <info>although resource is normally an empty element, it could contain an optional info element</info>
        </resource>
        ...
      </resources>
      <structure>
        <info>contains metadata about this structure element</info>
        <module>
          <info>contains metadata about this module element</info>
          <override>
            <title>This title overrides the title in the resource that this module points to</title>
            <pubdate>This pubdate overrides that in the topic's info element, if it has one.</pubdate>
            ...
          </override>
        </module>
      </structure>
    </assembly>
    Here some suggestions for discussion:
     
    1. Permit <info> on any element in an assembly.
     
    2.  Define the content of info like the DocBook 5 info element.
     
    3.  An info element in <structure> can contribute to the output, just like the info element on the root element of a document.
     
    4. An info element in any other assembly element generally does not contribute to the output, although I'm sure there are cases where it could.
     
    5.  Permit <override> only on <module>.
     
    6.  Define the content of <override> to be only those elements that make sense to be overridden.  Not sure what that list is, though.
     
    7. Any element in <override> is merged with the content that the module points to, and overrides it if the corresponding element exists in the resource.
     
    I don't much like the name <override>, so I'm open to suggestions.
     
     
    Bob Stayton
    Sagehill Enterprises
    bobs@sagehill.net
     
     


  • 4.  Re: [docbook-tc] assembly metadata

    Posted 02-17-2010 18:05
    I think assuming override is undesirable, as there are times when we 
    need to provide metadata at the module level, not only at the assembly 
    level.
    
    I'm not sure about a dedicated override element, but perhaps an 
    attribute on module and assembly to specify whether the metadata should 
    be an override of the metadata inside the actual resource?
    
    Best regards,
    
    --Scott
    
    Scott Hudson
    Senior XML Architect
    +1 (303) 542-2146  |  Office
    +1 (720) 663-SCOT [7268]  |  Gvoice
    Scott.Hudson@flatironssolutions.com
    http://www.flatironssolutions.com
    
    
    
    
    
    On 17-Feb-10 10:50 AM, Rowland, Larry wrote:
    > I would think that an info element that sometimes contributes to the 
    > output and sometimes does not would be confusing and possibly 
    > difficult to explain.  I am also not sure we need an override 
    > element.  Why not assume any content containing element that is a 
    > child of a module is intended to override the referenced content.  
    > Then add an assemblyinfo element that is explicitly identified as 
    > providing information about the assembly rather than the output (or 
    > add a role attribute or some other customization mechanism) for 
    > information about the assembly.  I think that would be a simpler 
    > markup model and easier to explain.
    > Regards,
    > Larry Rowland
    >
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > *From:* Bob Stayton [mailto:bobs@sagehill.net]
    > *Sent:* Friday, February 12, 2010 11:57 AM
    > *To:* DocBook Technical Committee
    > *Subject:* [docbook-tc] assembly metadata
    >
    > I'm following up on my action item to initiate a discussion of 
    > metadata in assembly. Here are the minutes from the last meeting:
    > --------------------------------------------------------------
    > Scott raised the issue of adding info to module and other
    > assembly elements to support metadata.  Norm had
    > added info in order to hold a title that would override
    > the title in the resource it pointed to. Bob objected
    > to using info for override content as well as
    > metadata for assembly elements.  It was agreed that
    > they need to be differentiated.
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
    > I'll start the discussion by suggesting that we add an info element, 
    > but document it as holding information to describe the current 
    > assembly-level element, not the element pointed to.  I would also 
    > suggest adding another element, perhaps named