The way we do this sort of thing is:
1. Create a centralized set of <taxonomy> elements, one for each type of
classification we want to apply to documents, with <category>s for each
type -- so something like
Then in the <textClass> of each document, add any relevant category
The private URI prefix is documented using a <prefixDef> element.
The advantage of this is that you can easily combine a whole set of
different types of categorizations from different taxonomies; your
taxonomies are centrally defined, clearly documented, and easily
maintained; and in our case at least, we can process the taxonomies to
create <valList>s in our ODD file so that the range of options available
for e.g. catRef/@target is constrained and documented in the schema,
making encoding much easier.
You can see example taxonomies in this file:
and example catRefs in this:
Hope this helps,
On 2016-12-08 10:24 AM, John P. McCaskey wrote:
> What is the best way to encode abstracts that are essentially just key-value pairs?
> Consider formulaic abstracts such as these:
> This document is a [writ|deed|charter]. The court of authority is [papal|secular]. The witness to the document is [insert someone’s name].
> The inventor was [insert name]. The researched drug was [insert chemical name]. The test facility was [hospital|military facility|university].
> Only the parameters are important. I don’t really need the introductory words.
> I’m looking for something like this:
> <item type="type">charter</item>
> <item type="court">secular</item>
> <item type="witness">someone’s name</item>
> But @type isn’t an attribute of <item> and <item> seems semantically wrong. <keywords> doesn’t work for key-value pairs. <classCode> doesn’t seem right. <catRef> seems overly complicated.
> What is the best approach, sticking to the stock schema?