Geraint North wrote:
This picks up the 'usage' idea?
This man is known as Norm.
His primary search 'name' is Walsh.
His first name is 'Norman' etc.
I'd suggest that it isn't up the the document publisher to decide these
things - it is up to the contributor/author to supply the writer with
the appropriate tags.
publisher, writer author? The person doing the markup
needs the information to mark it up semantically
for appropriate usage.
So, in your example, Norm says to the publisher:
"Here is how I like to be known:
<displayas>Norman Walsh</displayas>
<namecomponent> Norman <namecomponent>
<namecomponent> Norm <namecomponent>
<namecomponent> Walsh <namecomponent>
"
Which misses the metadata above.
Known as, search name etc.
I.e. inadequate to cover the semantics on the JC page.
If we had two people, "Walter Scott" and "Bob Walter", what use would a
"primary" search term have?
If you know you're publishing for the xxx journal then you'd ask for it
and use it as markup.
I guess the basis of my argument is that the only solution that would
ensure that the i18n requirements were effectively dealt with would be
to ask the person how _they_ want their name displayed and searched
for.
Different view. I know what the publishing chain wants, then I can
ask the person. It's the mix of the two that makes it work?
This would mean that the journals wouldn't get their consistency,
but as an author or reader, it would seem more important to me that a
particular person was consistent _across_ different publications, rather
than the list of authors be consistent _within_ a single publication.
In the world of journals that wouldn't count for much. If different
journals insist on different usage, there's not much you can do
if you're going to be rejected if it's not marked up like that?
Like I said, the mix of the two is viable.
In order to do that, you need to know the
function of each part of the name. Assume the journal wants the
names displayed as "Last, First M.". A guy named Luis Lopez Penabad
would obviously be displayed as "Penabad, Luis L." although this is
all wrong. He is Spanish, has one firstname (Luis) and two lastnames
(Lopez Penabad), one from each of his parents. The correct display
form is therefore "Lopez Penabad, Luis".
For whom? The publisher (Markus used a journal as a target, which is
possible the worst that it would get) requires a specific format.
Working for that publisher you'd need to present it appropriately.
If publishers do have strict guidelines in this regard, it would be
interesting to know _why_ they have these guidelines - I suspect that
they are artefacts from a time when search would be performed on the
printed document itself, which (as Markus showed in his example) has
clear disadvantages.
After you in terms of getting them to change?
King Canute is probably a good analogy!
Stopping the tide might be easier though.
Yes - I agree that getting them to change is an unrealistic proposition,
but by adding the 'wrong' tags to DocBook, I'd have thought that we'd be
in danger of pushing them down the wrong path (for some subjective value
of 'wrong').
Which are wrong?
For example, DocBook could take the approach of specifying the given
name and family name of an author, and allowing the XSLT process to
choose whether to render it as "<givenname> <familyname>" or
"<familyname>, <givenname>". I'd not be in favour of this approach,
I don't think this is the docbook way of working, reducing options?
It's the metadata about namecomponents that we
are missing, to keep Markus.. sorry, his journal
publishers and their quill pens, happy?
Yes - I guess my naive view is that I see no useful reason why the
journals should refer to me by anything other than how I like to be
called, and so the description of me in a journal should be completely
under my control.
<guessing/> The academic world is pretty well in charge of your career
when it comes to published articles. If you want to be published
then you follow their rules. Simple as that.
You are right that perhaps something extra is needed
"how I like to be known", perhaps something like:
<author>
<displayas role = "citation">Geraint North</displayas>
<displayas role = "formal">Mr North</displayas>
<displayas role = "informal">Geraint</displayas>
<searchterm>Geraint</searchterm>
<searchterm>Michael</searchterm>
<searchterm>North</searchterm>
</author>
This would allow people to find me in searches easily, cite me properly
in journals in the way that I'd like, and know how to address
formal/informal communication with me. I guess that the main difference
between this approach and the existing DocBook one is that the focus
shifts from "What are the components of your name? (so I can work out
how to address you)" to the much more direct "How do you like to be
addressed?"
Which is the provision of semantics via markup for use in presentation.
I think that's a fair use of docbook.
Provide enough options and even the journals can be kept happy.
You're forgetting search order above (unless implied).
As you say, very interesting stuff. My experience thus far has really
just been with Japan - when I get email from Japanese customers
addressed to "Geraint-san", it is often not obvious from the
individual's business card how I should address the reply. I have no
idea how I'd cope with a Thai customer!
Which is a part of why I found James page fascinating!
That's the other side of the i18N coin, learning what
different locales do 'normally' or politely.
I wonder if Japanese journals are as picky as Eu/US ones?
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
