MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] index terms
Erik Hennum wrote:
> The problem is architectural: properties that span multiple topics should
> be specified in the map context and not in the topic content.
I agree with Erik here: ranges that span topics cannot be done using
embedded index entries. They must be done at the map level.
Note that this is a special case of the more general problem of managing
linking among re-used components (for example, the case where Topic A
wants to have a cross reference to Topic B).
The only way to support this type of direct linking in a re-use
environment is to do it in such a way that the links are bound to the
use context, not the individual components being used.
In DITA terms this means "at the map level" because it is the map that
defines a specific use context, that is, a unique packaging of a set of
components for a specific delivery purpose (what I usually call a "unit
of publication").
However, having said that, it's difficult for me to imagine that few, if
any, DITA users would actually eat the expense of doing indexing that is
this sophisticated. Given the relatively low retrieval value of
back-of-the-book indexes for information delivered primarily in
electronic form it's difficult to see that an authoring group would
choose to invest its limited resources in indexing rather than some
other, higher-value aspect of the information.
Any publication group that cares that much about indexes is probably a
print-primary group for whom DITA is not an approprate choice in any case.
Therefore, I do not see any compelling reason to try to design an
explicit index range mechanism for DITA, at least not one that can span
topics.
> A last consideration. The <term> and <keyword> elements delimit controlled
> vocabularies that are embedded in the discourse. Should the writer have to
> add an index marker to index such instances of controlled vocabularies? Or
> would we be better off indexing delimited vocabularies (possibly under the
> control of policies)?
I would expect a full-featured DITA processor to provide the option of
including all keywords, terms, and other clearly-defined "mention"
instances in a back-of-the-book index.
The only downside here is that there's probably no reliable way to infer
a multi-level hierarchy but that's probably not a big problem in practice.
I would normally expect explicit index entries to be an escape for
authors when the use of existing classifying metadata and "mention"
elements isn't sufficient to produce a usable index or acceptable
retrieval performance.
Cheers,
E.
--
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
9390 Research Blvd, #410
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 372-8841
ekimber@innodata-isogen.com
www.innodata-isogen.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]