[tei-council] comments on edw90

[Lou Burnard]

Christian Wittern wrote:

>Thanks for your comments Lou.  It looks like we are actually moving
>forward a lot:-)
>
>I can't claim to understand everything, but it looks good as you
>present it.  Just some very small quibbles:
>
>Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Our recommendation is that
>>- the tei.typed class should be removed
>>- elements bearing a type attribute (and former members of the typed
>>  class) should be checked to see whether their valLists constitute an
>>  open or closed list
>>- for closed list, the datatype will be an alternation of the possible
>>  values
>>- for open (or semi) lists, the datatype will be tei.enumerated,
>>  i.e. a single token not containing whitespace
>>    
>>
>
>I assume what this comes down to is that every element in need of it
>will get a @type directly without the indirection through the class system.
>
>  
>


That's the proposal in essence.

>>We conclude that
>>
>>- datatypes should be expressed as <rng:data> expressions
>>- for commonly occurring cases (see below) we should define a small
>>  number of macros, which will be named in the way Syd proposes for
>>  datatypes
>>- it should be possible to map all datatypes to W3C basic datatypes,
>>  possibly with additional constraints
>>    
>>
>
>Does this mean that we deviate from the principle to base our stuff on
>W3C datatypes?  Or does this mean that we get at them through rng:data?
>
>  
>
The latter.



>>We are not sure where these constraints go in ODD-world, but probably
>>not in the <datatype>. We recommend using Schematron for them because
>>(a) we know it does the job (b) it is a candidate ISO recommendation.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>That is very nice, but do you actually plan to provide the necessary
>schematrons to do the validation?
>
>  
>

We havent yet decided whether to include  schematron assertions (or 
whatever they are called) in all such cases, but there should be some if 
only to demonstrate the concept.


>>tei.data.language
>>  I agree that we need to document exactly what this means somewhere
>>  and providing a TEI name for it is a good way of doing so.
>>    
>>
>
>Is this something different from xml:lang?  If yes, why do we need it?
>
>
>  
>

Good question. I think the general feeling was that it would be helpful 
to document the use of xml:lang by referring to this datatype, but that 
may be a mistake.


>  
>