Re: Encoding key-value pairs in an <abstract>

Hi there,

The way we do this sort of thing is:

1. Create a centralized set of <taxonomy> elements, one for each type of 
classification we want to apply to documents, with <category>s for each 
type -- so something like

<taxonomy xml:id="taxDocType">
   <category xml:id="dtWrit"><catDesc>Writ....</catDesc></category>
[...]
</taxonomy>

Then in the <textClass> of each document, add any relevant category 
references:

<textClass>
   <catRef target="tdt:dtWrit"/>
[...]
</textClass>

The private URI prefix is documented using a <prefixDef> element.

The advantage of this is that you can easily combine a whole set of 
different types of categorizations from different taxonomies; your 
taxonomies are centrally defined, clearly documented, and easily 
maintained; and in our case at least, we can process the taxonomies to 
create <valList>s in our ODD file so that the range of options available 
for e.g. catRef/@target is constrained and documented in the schema, 
making encoding much easier.

You can see example taxonomies in this file:

<http://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/includes.xml>

and example catRefs in this:

<http://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/ABCH1.xml>

Hope this helps,
Martin

On 2016-12-08 10:24 AM, John P. McCaskey wrote:
> What is the best way to encode abstracts that are essentially just key-value pairs?
>
> Consider formulaic abstracts such as these:
>
> This document is a [writ|deed|charter]. The court of authority is [papal|secular]. The witness to the document is [insert someone’s name].
>
> The inventor was [insert name]. The researched drug was [insert chemical name]. The test facility was [hospital|military facility|university].
>
> Only the parameters are important. I don’t really need the introductory words.
>
> I’m looking for something like this:
> <abstract>
> 	<list>
> 		<item type="type">charter</item>
> 		<item type="court">secular</item>
> 		<item type="witness">someone’s name</item>
> 	</list>
> </abstract>
>
> But @type isn’t an attribute of <item> and <item> seems semantically wrong. <keywords> doesn’t work for key-value pairs. <classCode> doesn’t seem right. <catRef> seems overly complicated.
>
> What is the best approach, sticking to the stock schema?
>
> --
>