RE: [dita] Proposed index range revisions (was Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?)

There are three questions troubling me now, and they are 
very different:

 1. Remote indexing. Do we need both the ability to 
introduce index entries when writing a topic and when assembling topics? If so, 
do we need a remote referencing mechanism from the assembly level (maps) into 
the specific locations in topics to be indexed? This would be a similar need to 
that identified for the <data> element.

 2. Keyref. Granted, keyref seems like a natural way 
to do matching of index start and end indications if any innovative mechanism is 
provided. About the keyref architecture itself ... Will keyref have a cluttered 
namespace? Is there room for namespacing or scoping in the anticipated keyref 
architecture?

 3. Is it appropriate to allow for directives? The 
Sperberg-McQueen reference

http://www.idealliance.org/papers/extreme/proceedings/html/2005/SperbergMcQueen02/EML2005SperbergMcQueen02.html

is very helpful in providing philosophical background here. 
Even if we have an orthodoxy about descriptive markup, we have an obligation to 
consider what directives we would allow and where they would appear. In 
explaining my poster at the IA Summit 

http://www.iasummit.org/2006/files/169_Presentation_Desc.pdf

one of my impulses was to say that we need to look at the 
control that we offer to authors over the effect in presentation. We have 
already conceded that we must provide local markup to allow authors to specify 
layout facts such as the size of graphics and/or table columns. We've seen a 
possible need to add markup to an <indexterm> to emphasize a particular 
index entry.

 

It's possible that directives that control processing 
behaviors such as formation of ranges would be appropriate in a high-level 
document assembly context, although in the case of this particular behavior, a 
better case might be made for establishing a conventional place for such 
directives in an associated file (the DITAVAL file?).

 

Best wishes,

 

Bruce

  

  
  From: Erik Hennum [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:38 PM
To: Michael 
  Priestley
Cc: ; Esrig, Bruce (Bruce); 
  Grosso, Paul
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposed index range revisions (was 
  Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?)

  

  
Hi, Index Enthusiasts:

For what it's worth, Sperberg-McQueen asserts 
  that an XML specification should "get the key things down in writing without 
  over-restricting things, without over-emphasizing the orderliness that we 
  perceive, without filtering out signal unintentionally." [1]

Trying to 
  keep that judicious big picture for the indexing question, I would think that 
  we should:

  
    
Make it easy to indicate _what_ is indexed but leave 
    output decisions up to the process within reason. (In other words, allow a 
    process to emit a page range if an indexed topic spans 20 pages or if 3 
    continguous topics are indexed with the same term.)

  
    
Accept that indexing has an implicit ambiguity and allow processes to 
    interpret an index both as a point / span over the flow for purposes of 
    determining page numbers and as a semantic assertion about the container of 
    the index item.

  
    
Rely on specialization to distinguish different types of index items 
    (especially differences in semantics).

Part of the challenge is 
  that indexing is partly contextual (as Paul Prescod has pointed out [mails 
  coming in faster than I can type]):

  
    
A topic might have the most important treatment of a subject in one 
    deliverable but not in another. 
    
The best term for the subject may be different in one deliverable than 
    another. For instance, I might need to change the term from "selection" to 
    "query" depending on the other topics and the terms they use or based on the 
    audience. Moreover, I'd like to make that change in one place for all of the 
    topics in the deliverable. 

In DITA, the representation of 
  context is the map, which suggests meeting these requirements through the map. 
  However, the positioning of index points and ranges with respect to the flow 
  is clearly best done within in the topic. Moreover, when I reuse a topic, I 
  don't want to have to reconstruct its indexing in each context.

Also, 
  DITA would benefit from a continuum of use -- being able (but not required) to 
  scale up to a rigorous separation of term from its sense (taxonomy, here we 
  come).

In short, we defined DITA 1.1 as the simple cut back in February 
  and have many tough questions remaining that might best be attacked as a 
  whole.

For explicit ranges, my main concern is that we avoid 
  multiplying DITA referencing mechanisms. If we're confident that we aren't 
  introducing a constraining legacy, I'm happy with keyref.

Hoping 
  that's useful,

Erik Hennum


[1] 
  http://www.idealliance.org/papers/extreme/proceedings/html/2005/SperbergMcQueen02/EML2005SperbergMcQueen02.html