discuss: db2omf
Subject:
Re: db2omf
From:
"Greg Ferguson" ####@####.####
Date:
8 Mar 2001 19:03:28 -0000
Message-Id: <10103081358.ZM24346@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On Mar 8, 1:48pm, Mark Komarinski wrote:
> Subject: Re: db2omf
> Greg Ferguson wrote:
> > Here's some good content on the hows/whys of the OMF engine:
> >
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/osrt/omf/faq.html
> >
> > I think it's important for an author to understand how to
> > include proper metadata in *their* DocBook documents so that
> > it can be parsed and *feed* the OMF engine easily. This gives
> > the author an idea on how this data can be effectively used and
> > why we "require" (strongly advocate?) it.
>
> Sorry, this doesn't explain much to me. If DB tags can be converted
> to OMF data, then why bother documenting it?
To make sure the appropriate tags dp get included in one's DB
documents AND to make sure they are used consistently, which in
turn will facilitate creating an OMF record (e.g. - date formats,
version numbers and record of revision, consistency in the title...
all discussions we have had in the past).
> If DB already includes indexing, why use OMF? Is OMF supposed
> to be a meta-search engine? What makes it different from google,
> aside from the fact that google indexes everything, not just open
> source documentation?
Try it out - http://www.ibiblio.org/osrt/omf/#search
I may be oversimplifying, but I believe the idea is to effectively
catalog by making use of the available tags and structure of
various documents. This allows for a more precise means to search
(field-oriented) rather than (or in some cases, this could be
"in addition to") the "shotgun blast" full-text search approach.
(Further details on the pages referenced by the above URL)
> If this is just a matter of "make sure these tags are filled out", let
> me know what the tags in question are, and I'll put it in the style
> section.
That's pretty much what it comes down to...."make sure these tags
are included, and filled-out properly/consistently"
r,
Ferg
