Re: seg and interp

On 05/05/17 08:50, Dominique Mee =C3=B9s wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:55:34 +0200, Roberto Rosselli Del Turco <roberto=
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Piotr,
>> I've been tempted to use <taxonomy> for a very similar purpose, but
>> wouldn't that be a sort of "tag abuse"? Since from what I understand
>> reading the relative section in the Guidelines this element should be
>> used for *bibliographical* taxonomies only, it is not a general purpos=
e
>> classification tool.
> Reading 2.3.7, I see words bibliosomething used only about the role of =
the bibl element under taxonomy, not about the contents, the domain, of t=
he taxonomy. Even if the examples are quite bibliographical, I see nothin=
g that forbids the use of taxonomy for something else. Or am I mistaken?

Given the definition as "defines a typology either implicitly, by=20
means of a bibliographic citation, or explicitly by a structured=20
taxonomy" I know I've certainly used it for more ad hoc=20
typologies and structured taxonomies for all sorts of things.=20
More of a hierarchical set of keyword categories that are then=20
referenced at the lowest applicable level for any particular=20
segment of text (at whatever granularity makes most sense).  I=20
find that using taxonomy in this way is a very powerful mechanism=20
because it gives the power of creating the hierarchy by which the=20
categories are nested to the encoder and thus enables them to=20
express their understanding of whatever form of analysis they are=20
undertaking to a level of granularity that makes sense to them. =20
I'd always prefer to point to a deeply nested category than an=20
interp, for example. But I like deeply hierarchical=20
classifications. ;-)

-James

--=20
Dr James Cummings, [email protected]
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford