I would suggest DTD fragments, as opposed to merely tag names. That would
solve the problem you are suggesting. Yes, I do believe that such
initiatives have been established, but I have not investigated them, as
may be obvious by my postings.

To restate, I think that these libaries would

1. aid in DTD creation, as structures such as lists, links and tables
would be available for introduction, possibly after modification, into DTDs

2. aid in conformance to common names for like structures, which would be
particularly useful for searching


On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Linda van den Brink wrote:

> I agree that it would be a good thing to have tag libraries. (aren't there
> *any* initiatives in this area already?) I imagine they would be lists of
> tag names that are standardized (though not necessarily formally). However,
> I wouldn't want the structure of how these tags nest etc to be standardized
> as well. If a list of standard tag names existed, I would certainly use it
> (though it would not have to be mandatory).
> For example, if most people used
> <author>
> instead of
> <auth> or <writer>
> that would make context searching a lot more powerful, even without standard
> structures. In my opinion, this would be the right balance between standards
> and openness/freedom.
> Linda van den Brink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Lander [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 10:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Search Engines
>  Sam,
> I agree with you, but I don't think that searching is always going to be
> as easy as the author example that we've been using. Some DTDs use very
> esoteric GIs and others are so generalized that they don't offer any
> contextual information.
> For example, during the authoring process, I might create notes, examples
> and warnings. During transformation to my publishing DTD, I might
> transform (is transform the correct term?) those elements to docpart, a
> catch-all. If that is the case, the search engine won't be able to do
> much in terms of context.
> Another problem with auth is that you might end of with 'authority' and
> or some other GI containing auth. Although the data+markup model will be
> better than what we have now, particularly if you are familiar with the
> associated DTD, it will be hit-and-miss most of the time, IMHO.
> I think that tag libraries are not a bad idea anyway, as a list is almost
> always structured the same way, with minor variance. Tables, links,
> binary object and other type of elements also have base models. I'd
> subscribe to a tag library to make DTD construction a bit easier,
> grabbing and modifying structures as I built the DTD.
> Richard.
> On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Hunting, Sam wrote:
> > I don't think we have to create a tag Esperanto in order to have search
> > engines that are enhanced because they are content-based, ie in XML.
> >
> > Where we used to have one domain to search, text as such, we now have two:
> > markup, and data (content = data + markup). The markup establishes the
> > context in which the data is to be found.
> >
> > To use your example, a query where the string "auth" was found in the
> markup
> > domain would work for to discover authors named "Smith":
> >
> >         <person role="AUTHor">SMITH</person>
> >         <AUTHor>SMITH</author>
> >
> > while filtering out sentences like:
> >
> >         <p>I'm an AUTHor, and any editor named SMITH is no friend of
> > mine.</p>
> >
> > So perhaps full-text retrieval, both in the two domains, markup and data,
> > will have enough advantages for our current retrieval vendors to get
> moving
> > on this problem right away, without standardizing element names any more
> > than human language is already standardized -- since markup, like data, is
> > meant to be human-readable (Design Goal 6 of XML: "XML documents should be
> > human-legible and reasonably clear.") This would be yet another advantage
> > gained by the fact that XML parsers are easy to build.
> >
> <?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
> <INFO>
> <NAME>Richard Lander</NAME>
> <EMAIL>relander at</EMAIL>
> <WEB></WEB>
> </INFO>

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<NAME>Richard Lander</NAME>
<EMAIL>relander at</EMAIL>