I recently wrote a white paper for Innodata Isogen titled Content Metadata Standards: Libraries, Publishers, and More that is available for free if you don’t mind registering first. (If you do register, you’ll find a nice choice of other white papers available on topics such as DITA, content re-use, and ebooks.)
Last week I discussed the possibility of using the SWOOP ontology editor and the W3C’s SKOS standard to create taxonomies or thesaurii, and I promised to go into a little more detail about how to do so.
In the online course in taxonomy development that I took recently we reviewed several popular taxonomy development tools. I found them to be expensive or to have clunky, dated interfaces, and was disappointed that the formats most of these programs supported for storing saved work was either a binary proprietary format or what they just called “XML”. (I’m open to correction on any of these points.) “OK,” I wondered, “What XML?” Reviewing some samples of…
There are many terms that people can’t agree on. The great thing about standards is that even when everyone doesn’t agree about definitions included in those standards, these definitions provide a common baseline for everyone to work from.
In a recent posting here on The future of RDFa, I described some of the advantages of RDFa compared with some of the disadvantages of microformats. When
Massachusetts Commonwealth Mass.gov Chief Technology Strategist Sarah Bourne posted a comment about problems that microformats present for website accessibility, I asked her to elaborate, and she was kind enough to put this together for me.