Re: Question on abbreviations (fwd)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net>
> Looking at your various responses on this topic, I sense you have a strong
> protective sense towards database managers.

I don't see any need to protect them, no. I'm not a DBA, and I'm fortunate
enough not to have to deal with content on a daily basis anymore. I have,
however, worked in daily content groups on web sites and as a reporter, and
I know that if the places I've worked for are any indication, content
providers will be extremely reluctant to adopt a checkpoint like this
because of the burden it would place on the writers. The database people
merely police the content within, so there's really no reason for me to
protect them.

I suppose I need to mention here that I'm not doing this because Webvan has
some big content repository it needs to fix. There are no ulterior motives.
(For that matter, my group, User Interface, makes it a point to stay out of
technical issues.) As a technical person, and as a writer, I think the
risk-to-reward ratio favors the dictionary concept.

I've used words like "authority" to describe something like a dictionary
server. I think there's value in considering what exactly a dictionary
contains. It's not just random definitions people sent in, but content that
is itself carefully scrutinized. If a writer is compelled to define URL,
odds are they'll come up with "Universal Resource Locator", which is
incorrect. I doubt many would be able to come up with "deoxyribonucleic
acid" or the expansion of "Messrs.", either. When a site claims authority
over a term, that's when they should be defining it. If they're not, they
shouldn't be stretched to expand every "United States" and "Grand Old Party"
for a minuscule fraction of people who may, perhaps, be looking to have the
terms defined.

> If the content provider
> doesn't know the correct use of an acronym in his database, whatever
reason
> is it there?

Lots of people use acronyms or abbreviations they don't understand, or don't
have the capacity to describe to someone else. Ask an average programmer
what CGI is, and you'll probably get "a way to build web pages on the
server," not "Common Gateway Interface." (Which brings up another point:
expansions are not necessarily definitions. Expanding "GOP" would not aid
users in understanding that it's the Republican Party in the U.S. Therefore,
what you're really looking for in an effort to aid accessibility is more
likely to be definition.)

> I'm unsure why you are critical of a plan to change such content only
> forward and not backward.

But most of the value of the web is its legacy. If I can only get
definitions of terms that have a last-modified date of May 2001 or later, is
the web really more accessible? Now, contrast that with something that
allows everything, no matter the date, to be made at least a little more
accessible using a standard dictionary, or much more accessible, using a
site-specific dictionary.

> You ask why abbreviations and acronyms need to be tagged? It's because
> they are not or not yet "natural words". If/when the technology has the
> ability to translate "on the fly" to other natural languages, non-words
> will have to be tagged ... so we have one reason for now (expanding
stuff),
> and one reason for later (language translations), so get started now since
> it's so onerous to get it done right! <grin>

My question wasn't why they need to be expanded, it's why they need to be
marked up. In the user-agent scenario, anything that appears on the page
could be defined.

-
m

Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 20:18:54 UTC