Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > We will probably be moving the Forrest DTD to XHTML2 in one > of the next > things to do. As you know, there are <meta> tags that are a > nice way of > adding additional info in the page. > > http://academ.hvcc.edu/~kantopet/xhtml/index.php?page=xhtml+me > ta+content > " > Types of meta-information include: > > * The contents and topics of the document.
DocBook has this too - you can markup a section as relating to a topic in some external controlled vocabulary. I think this is a good way to relate a document or part of a document to a particular concept or set of concepts. Stefano wrote: > > I agree that there must be some kind of automatism going > on, but the > > topic creation is a human task and programs would do a > terrible job at > > doing this. Nicola wrote: > It's still humans editing them, but the information can be > scattered in > the documents themselves. Yes ... the topics (at least the main, ontological, topics) are written by hand, and the documents contain metadata that LINKS them to these ontological topic. So the metadata in the docs are precisely ASSOCIATIONS rather than topics. > > but anyway, we decided to do a first step with handwritten > linkmaps. we > > can move incrementally from there on. > > What I see is that metadata in the docs cannot and should not totally > replace a centralized bell-written site.xml, but can nicely > complement it. Agree 100%. Except for the "bell-written" bit. :-)
