Re: seg and interp

Dear Roberto,

You (and indirectly some of us as well) may be making a good case for=20
allowing <taxonomy> elsewhere in the header as well (where it wouldn't=20
have the semantic implications that you mention).

Best regards,

   Piotr


On 05/05/17 15:19, Roberto Rosselli Del Turco wrote:
> 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:
>>>
>>>> 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 b=
e
>>>> 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=20
>>> of the bibl element under taxonomy, not about the contents, the=20
>>> domain, of the taxonomy. Even if the examples are quite=20
>>> bibliographical, I see nothing that forbids the use of taxonomy for=20
>>> something else. Or am I mistaken?
>>
>> 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=20
> is written immediately after and from the examples proposed I gathered=20
> that it would be an unwarranted extension of its original purpose to=20
> make it a document-wide element: if I am wrong, and I surely believe=20
> you if you tell me so, then may I ask that the language of the=20
> Guidelines be made more clear and that at least one example showing=20
> how to use <taxonomy> from the main <text> be added? would @ana work=20
> with it as well?
>
> Thank you,
>
> R
>