[tei-council] datatypes: outstanding questions

[Christian Wittern]

Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> writes:

> I now have another, and MUCH SHORTER list of outstanding issues for
> Council's consideration. 

Great.  We are indeed making rapid progress!

>
> w at lemma:
>   Syd suggests this should be a child element which is not
>   unreasonable: if it remains an
>   attribute, I think it should be tei.data.name

I would also advocate a child element here, but I am a bit afraid that
if <w> is used, it is usually quite extensively, which would make it
quite unwieldy to handle this with a child element, rather than an
attribute.  But I guess this is what we will have to get used to.
Encoders can always change this back to @lemma with their ODDs.

> arc at label2:
> triangle at label:
>    Syd marks all these as "NaAA" : but they are still all there and
>    need to be fixed if we want to retain this module

All these labels need to be changed to child elements here, no sweat.

> orgDivn at reg:
> orgName at reg:
> orgTitle at reg:
> orgType at reg:
>    Likewise, marked as NaAA : need to be fixed

same here.

> schemaSpec at start:
>    Syd proposes tei.data.idents: should be list {tei.data.ident+} for
>    consistency

Wow, you can have more than one ident here?  Good news.

> schemaSpec at namespace:
> elementSpec at ns:
>    Syd proposes xsd:anyURI : but is a namespace
>    necessarily a URI (and if it is, why not use
>    tei.data.pointer). suggest (new) tei.data.namespace mapping to ?

and of course, both will have the same names, surely?

>
> TEI at version:
>    Syd proposes  xsd:token { pattern="[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+){0,2}[abdp]?" :
>    which seems entirely unnecessary effort to me, but it doesnt matter
>    to anyone except us, so ...

Shouldn't this be a fixed value? 5.0 for P5?  Everything else seems to
be asking for trouble to me.

> alt at wScale:
> altGrp at wScale:
>    Syd says [should be dropped completely] : i agree, assuming that we
>    agree on using either 0..1 or 0..100 (but not either) to express
>    probabilities. These elements need a lot of tidying up.

Who will be doing this tidying up? 

> %tei.dictionaries at expand:
> %tei.dictionaries at split:
> %tei.dictionaries at value:
>     : no proposals are made for these three, presumably "pending DI
>     revision"

They all look like elements to me, mostly.  We need to have a formal
process to get the "DI revision" into shape.

>
> %tei.dictionaries at orig:
>    NaAA : is still there, but in need of serious revision

as above.

>
> %tei.names at reg:
>    NaAA :  is still there, but in need of serious revision
> %tei.personPart at reg:
>    NaAA :  is still there, but in need of serious revision
>
> %tei.temporalExpr at reg:
>    NaAA : is still there, but should be removed
>

For all these regs, didn't we have a proposal to handle them?


Time for boarding,

Christian


-- 

 Christian Wittern 
 Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
 47 Higashiogura-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8265, JAPAN