Re: seg and interp

Il 05.05.2017 14:07 James Cummings ha scritto:
> On 05/05/17 08:50, Dominique Mee =C3=B9s wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 09:55:34 +0200, Roberto Rosselli Del Turco=20
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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=20
>>> purpose
>>> classification tool.
>> Reading 2.3.7, I see words bibliosomething used only about the role of=
=20
>> the bibl element under taxonomy, not about the contents, the domain,=20
>> of the taxonomy. Even if the examples are quite bibliographical, I see=
=20
>> nothing that forbids the use of taxonomy for something else. Or am I=20
>> mistaken?
>=20
> Given the definition as "defines a typology either implicitly, by
> means of a bibliographic citation, or explicitly by a structured
> taxonomy" I know I've certainly used it for more ad hoc typologies and
> structured taxonomies for all sorts of things. More of a hierarchical
> set of keyword categories that are then referenced at the lowest
> applicable level for any particular segment of text (at whatever
> granularity makes most sense).  I find that using taxonomy in this way
> is a very powerful mechanism because it gives the power of creating
> the hierarchy by which the categories are nested to the encoder and
> thus enables them to express their understanding of whatever form of
> analysis they are undertaking to a level of granularity that makes
> sense to them.  I'd always prefer to point to a deeply nested category
> than an interp, for example. But I like deeply hierarchical
> classifications. ;-)

Guys, it may well be that I'm reading too much into the text of the=20
Guidelines (not a native English speaker after all), but consider that=20
<taxonomy> belongs to <classDecl> which "is used to group together=20
definitions or sources for any descriptive classification schemes used=20
*by other parts of the header*": this last remark seems to preclude=20
general use of <taxonomy> wrt the actual <text>. From this, from what is=20
written immediately after and from the examples proposed I gathered that=20
it would be an unwarranted extension of its original purpose to make it=20
a document-wide element: if I am wrong, and I surely believe you if you=20
tell me so, then may I ask that the language of the Guidelines be made=20
more clear and that at least one example showing how to use <taxonomy>=20
from the main <text> be added? would @ana work with it as well?

Thank you,

R