RE: [Bug-gnupedia] Re: Classification difficulty and incompletene ss

[Bob Dodd]

I'm sorry Duncan, this is going to go on forever but...

We also need to identify main author(s). Sometimes entries may come
from project teams, where everyone plus the teaboy gets listed as
authors, but we still need to know the main authors for indexing
purposes.

We also need to handle the "F. Bloggs et al" style of naming.

I also wonder about "foreign" names (i.e. not 'european') where it's
not the surname that is important. Actually, you get that in Iceland
too: the phonebook there is listed/indexed by first name... I'm sorry,
I don't know what happens with academic publications.

/Bob Dodd

--- Duncan Lock <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>       Following up from my previous post and having read some more of the
> posts concerning classification here is a slightly modified version
> of the
> XML example layout:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <?xml:stylesheet rel="stylesheet" type="text/xsl" href="gnupedia
> article.xsl" ?>
> 
> <article>
>       <authors>
>               <author>
>                       <name></name>
>                       <email></email>
>                       <wwwurl></wwwurl>
>                       <digital-signature></digital-signature>
>               </author>
>               ...
>       </authors>
>       <version>
>               <number></number>
>               <created-on></created-on>
>               <last-updated></last-updated>
>       </version>
>       <reviews>
>               <reviewer>
>                       <name></name>
>                       <email></email>
>                       <wwwurl></wwwurl>
>                       <digital-signature></digital-signature>
>                       <date-of-review></date-of-review>
>                       <review>
>                       </review>
>               </reviewer>
>               ...
>       </reviews>
>       <copyleft></copyleft>
>       
>       <classification>
>               <subject
>                       name=""
>                       dewey=""
>                       loc=""
>               </subject>
>               ...
>       </classification>
>       
>       <content
>               title="" />
>               
>               <!-- 
>                       Article body goes here, using, possibly,
>                       pretty standard HTML tags: <h1>, <h2> etc, 
>                       <p>, <em>, <strong> and so on.
>               -->
>       </content>      
> </article>
> 
>       Note the new <classification> section containing any number of
> subjects allowing an article to be classified under an arbitrarily
> number of
> subjects/categories
> 
> Dunc.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden
> > Behalf Of <address@hidden>
> > Sent: 17 January 2001 9:42
> > To: address@hidden
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: [Bug-gnupedia] Re: Classification difficulty and 
> > incompleteness
> >
> <SNIP
> > Classification is incomplete in the mathematical sense, and 
> > it is unclear 
> > whether all documents should be classified [see below for 
> > explanations of 
> > these points]. What has been found to work best is:
> > 
> > *) the ability to assign multiple subjects to a document, so 
> > a document can be 
> > both science.biology.genetics.human and ethics.biology
> > *) separation of of subject from format (so films, 
> > biographies, articles on a 
> > topic can be found in the same place.
> > *) using multiple classification schemes, preferably ones 
> > known to and 
> > understood by the users (this means LoC and Dewey mainly).
> > *) pointers from one category into another (exemplified by 
> > the Yahoo system)
> <SNIP 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/