You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Keywords are a navigational aid, but they are unconstrained now, and with only a few, mostly undocumented, general principles.
First, about constraints: there is a way to use a controlled vocabulary from GDFR (see #361 and also the relevant section of the doc on creating format descriptions ). But these constraints have not been used yet and besides, they require some pre-training for being able to use them according to their rather technical definitions (see the GDFR Classification document in our vault). Perhaps starting with some most obvious controlled keywords is a good idea.
One realisation that I have come to is that content-related relationships should be taken out of format families and moved to the keyword-sphere (see #129 , #472).
Now, a question: should we have other kinds of @type under <keyword>, e.g. something like "content", to handle the STATA formats?
What @type would we then use for the keyword that contains "TEI", then? It's not so much about the content here, but there is obviously a strong (formal) commonality, somewhat stronger than what's implied in format families, in this case (I think).
SIS:keywordsIssues concerning keyword inventories for use with format descriptions
1 participant
Heading
Bold
Italic
Quote
Code
Link
Numbered list
Unordered list
Task list
Attach files
Mention
Reference
Menu
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Keywords are a navigational aid, but they are unconstrained now, and with only a few, mostly undocumented, general principles.
First, about constraints: there is a way to use a controlled vocabulary from GDFR (see #361 and also the relevant section of the doc on creating format descriptions ). But these constraints have not been used yet and besides, they require some pre-training for being able to use them according to their rather technical definitions (see the GDFR Classification document in our vault). Perhaps starting with some most obvious controlled keywords is a good idea.
One realisation that I have come to is that content-related relationships should be taken out of format families and moved to the keyword-sphere (see #129 , #472).
Now, a question: should we have other kinds of
@typeunder<keyword>, e.g. something like "content", to handle the STATA formats?What
@typewould we then use for the keyword that contains "TEI", then? It's not so much about the content here, but there is obviously a strong (formal) commonality, somewhat stronger than what's implied in format families, in this case (I think).Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions