Comments on: Some comments on the NLM XML plugin for Word 2007 http://ptsefton.com/2008/04/24/some-comments-on-the-nlm-xml-plugin-for-word-2007.htm This seems to be a workblog Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:41:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Chris Rusbridge http://ptsefton.com/2008/04/24/some-comments-on-the-nlm-xml-plugin-for-word-2007.htm/comment-page-1#comment-37 Chris Rusbridge Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:07:25 +0000 http://ptsefton.com/2008/04/24/some-comments-on-the-nlm-xml-plugin-for-word-2007.htm#comment-37 Peter, this is interesting, and rings bells of similarity with CDocS from the University of Glasgow, from around the early noughties. Their system was very strongly tied to older Word macro languages under the skin. I guess I (and possibly the IJDC journal editor, who uses Word and OpenOffice and OJS) could be interested in ICE. I did just take a look at the possibility of downloading it to give it a try, but I guess I'm a bit faint-hearted. Not only do I have to download ICE, I need Mac OpenOffice as well, plus a bunch of Word and OO templates. It looks a lot of work for a simple trial, and you can't (apparently) yet produce me a NLM DTD XML-formatted document. I think the idea is great, love the "deposit" button, but don't under-estimate how hard it is to persuade those behind the bleeding edge to give things a try, even if they start out willing... Peter, this is interesting, and rings bells of similarity with CDocS from the University of Glasgow, from around the early noughties. Their system was very strongly tied to older Word macro languages under the skin.

I guess I (and possibly the IJDC journal editor, who uses Word and OpenOffice and OJS) could be interested in ICE. I did just take a look at the possibility of downloading it to give it a try, but I guess I’m a bit faint-hearted. Not only do I have to download ICE, I need Mac OpenOffice as well, plus a bunch of Word and OO templates. It looks a lot of work for a simple trial, and you can’t (apparently) yet produce me a NLM DTD XML-formatted document. I think the idea is great, love the “deposit” button, but don’t under-estimate how hard it is to persuade those behind the bleeding edge to give things a try, even if they start out willing…

]]> By: Pablo Fernicola http://ptsefton.com/2008/04/24/some-comments-on-the-nlm-xml-plugin-for-word-2007.htm/comment-page-1#comment-36 Pablo Fernicola Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:18:55 +0000 http://ptsefton.com/2008/04/24/some-comments-on-the-nlm-xml-plugin-for-word-2007.htm#comment-36 Hi Peter, Thanks for the comments and feedback, I'll use them as motivation for future postings. There are two main (and different) audiences for the add-in: authors and journal staff. The demo was focused on the author experience, and, as you noticed, we try as much as possible not to introduce new UI. We try to keep the learning curve as low as possible, to simplify the authors' experience, while being able to gather more structured content. The other audience for the add-in is that of the folks in the back-end of journals: editors, copy editors, publishing workflow folks, and archive staff. This set of people have full access to the metadata that is a part of a NLM document (for those interested, we implemented this using InfoPath within Word). These folks have at least some knowledge of the NLM format or of its metadata requirements. There is some interesting stuff going on at the template level, which would answer some of the points you bring up. The folks on the back-end will author templates for authors to download, and can incorporate rules into those templates. In relation to the table in the Abstract, it was just convenient to use that section when doing the demo, but it indeed is valid to have tables there (http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/tag-library/2.2/n-kx20.html): "Such abstracts may be extensive, incorporating figures and tables." Feel free to drop by http://blogs.msdn.com/exscientia/ and let me know if you have additional feedback. I will be happy to continue the dialog, and try to address scenarios you bring up. Hi Peter,

Thanks for the comments and feedback, I’ll use them as motivation for future postings.

There are two main (and different) audiences for the add-in: authors and journal staff.

The demo was focused on the author experience, and, as you noticed, we try as much as possible not to introduce new UI. We try to keep the learning curve as low as possible, to simplify the authors’ experience, while being able to gather more structured content.

The other audience for the add-in is that of the folks in the back-end of journals: editors, copy editors, publishing workflow folks, and archive staff. This set of people have full access to the metadata that is a part of a NLM document (for those interested, we implemented this using InfoPath within Word). These folks have at least some knowledge of the NLM format or of its metadata requirements.

There is some interesting stuff going on at the template level, which would answer some of the points you bring up. The folks on the back-end will author templates for authors to download, and can incorporate rules into those templates.

In relation to the table in the Abstract, it was just convenient to use that section when doing the demo, but it indeed is valid to have tables there (http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/tag-library/2.2/n-kx20.html):

“Such abstracts may be extensive, incorporating figures and tables.”

Feel free to drop by http://blogs.msdn.com/exscientia/ and let me know if you have additional feedback. I will be happy to continue the dialog, and try to address scenarios you bring up.

]]>