[pmwiki-users] Re: yet another documentation suggestion ...

[V.Krishn]

On Thursday 04 August 2005 07:20, John Rankin wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 August 2005 1:16 PM, V.Krishn <mistyfire at autograf.pl> wrote:
> >> The markup [[PageName?action=dc]] would show the metadata
> >
> >Has this become a standard, recognized by all meta-readers and
> > search-engines: <link rel="meta"
> > href="http://wiki.example.com/ExamplePage?action=dc" /> ?
>
> Almost, I think it should read:
> <link rel="meta" type="text/xml"
> href="http://wiki.example.com/ExamplePage?action=dc" /> Example:
> <link rel='meta' type='text/xml'
> href='http://wiki.tertiary.govt.nz/~InstitutionalRepositories/Main/ReportOf
>Findings?action=dc' />
>
> I think 'this is a standard, recognized by some meta-readers and
> search-engines'
>
> >One strange thing, this page
> >http://www.emacswiki.org/cw/DublinCoreForWiki
> >describes <dc:description> -- ignore, or use the first paragraph of the
> > wiki page.
> >
> >Which means the standard HTML <meta name='description' content=text /> is
> >ignored or not taken into account. :-(
> >
> :-( indeed.
>
> I think it's that once again PmWiki is ahead of the wiki pack in
> having a (:description:) directive! here's how I think it might work
> in practice:
> - assume for the sake of this example that there is an 'edit metadata' link
>
> - we create and save a new wiki page, then click the edit metadata link
>
> - pmwiki brings up a dc-based form that is populated with sensible
>   default values, based on the content of the page (eg description
>   contains the de-wikified text of the first paragraph)
This does sound good. 

>
> - some of the fields are not editable, as they are derived from
>   information about the page
>
> - we edit values as we see fit and save the metadata record
>
> >Secondly, similarly it ommits the meta Keywords??
> >Please guide me if the grasp is loose.
>
> As I understand it, Dublin Core defines /structure/ not content.
> I think we could map (:keywords:) to dc:subject -- again pmwiki
mmmm.... this would be not quite fair as the scope of these are different.

> is ahead of the pack in having a (:keywords:) directive. Or, we
> might choose to use the !categories.
>
> >So now we can start with some present standards like:
> >(:title <test>:)
> >(:keywords <word list>:)
> >(:description <text>:)
> >
> >and implementing a script to extract meta according to definitions by
> >DublinCore into
> ><link rel="meta" href="http://wiki.example.com/ExamplePage?action=dc" />
> >would not be difficult, infact it would be quite similar to rss module.
>
> Exactly right. For me the big design question is whether to embed the
> metadata in the page itself or as a separate metadata record or a bit
> of both.
To me metadata sounds a seperate structure which describes another structure.
I guess having them as a separate metadata record file would be fair. 
Secondly, having the structure build from core in XML would make it more 
compliant, meaning the file created would be an XML file.

Presently, having them within the wiki page is also ok, since most of the 
information like author, summary, timestamp, changelog... etc currently 
reside in it. 
Either full integration or full segregation seems appropriate.

I also see no harm in author making change to the meta content, remember its 
"wiki" and authors best know how to describe the page if he/she has full 
freedom to change content.
>
> As an aside, with this in place, the dc metadata could be used to
> describe uploaded files that one wants to make discoverable. 
Not sure, this idea seems a little too far fetched.
To me files attached to a page is content of the page itself, though it cannot 
be viewed in browsers unless its downloaded and special application 
activated.
This may also sound far fetched though.  ;-)

> In  effect, the pmwiki page becomes the metadata record for the
> attachment.

What would be status of these documents:
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-MCF-XML-970624/

This does not define <link rel="meta" ...> ??
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links

Maybe we start the structure closer to recommended by w3c and also including 
elements specific to a wiki. 
There would be no harm in having an extra element that dc does not recommend, 
I guess?

V.Krishn