|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hypertext Markup Language |
|
Pervasive and supported means of describing
information for Web transmission |
|
Describes data in terms of appearance – what it
is supposed to look like (e.g. – Bold, Center, 13 Point) |
|
Limited structure, reuse, and interchange |
|
In other words, Appearance Based not Structure
Based |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Describes data in terms of structure – what it
is (e.g. Footnote, Reference, Affiliation, etc…) |
|
Does not describe how your data is supposed to
appear |
|
In other words, Structure Based not Appearance
Based |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mostly marketing |
|
XML is more difficult to author DTD |
|
More XML tools will be available than SGML |
|
With XML, you will have an increased probability
of interfacing with other systems |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quick to market existing products |
|
Quick to develop new products |
|
More products (feasibility of publishing for
smaller audiences) |
|
Richer user experience (Searching, Linking,
etc..) |
|
|
|
Even though I have to produce multiple outputs
(Paper, PDA x2, Web x2, CD) |
|
Even though my inputs keep on increasing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identifies structures within document to be
tagged (Header, Abstract, Footnote, etc…) |
|
Identifies what are the names of the tags
(<fn> or <foot> for Footnote) |
|
Contains rules regarding the order that tags can
occur within the document |
|
Type of tagging (Content vs. Structured) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bulletproof DTD |
|
Tagging Rules have to be crystal clear |
|
Structured Tagging done by computer |
|
Content–Level Tagging aided by computer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understand Organizational Goals |
|
Understand the technology being implemented to
realize goals |
|
Identify Micro Requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manuscript Submission Process |
|
Authoring/Editing System |
|
Content Management System |
|
Rendering Environment |
|
Distribution Plan |
|
|
|
|
Type of data (Tables, Equations, Formulae,
Figures) |
|
References (Numeric, Harvard Style) |
|
Variety of Data (Books, Journals, Newsletters) |
|
Content Tagging vs. Structural Tagging |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public DTD |
|
Aggregator DTD |
|
Custom DTD |
|
Combination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5000 page project |
|
5 minutes per page to fix |
|
25,000 minutes => 417 hours |
|
At 7 hours per day (no breaks) => 59.6 days |
|
|
|
|
|
The tagging is inconsistent resulting in: |
|
The
Content/Document Management System will be useless |
|
You won’t be able to send it to an Aggregator |
|
Data won’t render correctly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
Automated Cross-References |
|
See figure 15.5 |
|
See fig. 15.5 |
|
Refer to figure below |
|
As illustrated on previous page |
|
… drawing 15.5 years at hard labor. |
|
See figure 15.1 in volume II of … |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|