[tei-council] solving the Birnbaum Biznai

[Christian Wittern]

Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk> writes:

> Two issues have been raised in regard to this, and we need to take
> a strategic decision.
>
> *Firstly*, do we want to change the basic idea of what a model class is,
> to allow
..
>  1) uses classes, and introduce very relaxed content models which permit
>       elements to repeat in unwanted ways
>  2) use classes, with the proposed new meaning of what a "class" is
>  3) introduce and implement module dependencies, and accept that
>      it will be harder to guarantee schemas which don't have dangling links
>

(2) and (3) do not seem to be mutually exclusive.  For the moment, we
have to consider that this will throw out a significant part of the
work we have done in the class struggle, which we will have to redo
then, by revisiting the reports and tcw07.  Please see my other
message on this issue as well.


> Personally, I think that route 2) is most in line with where the TEI
> ODD system has been going. But YMMV.
>
> *Secondly*, if we do take route 2), it has serious implications
> for the non-ODD extension mechanism, ie using schema/dtd
> module fragments and combining them in a DTD subset or
> hand-written RelaxNG schema. Lou and I had a long (and probably
> incoherent) discussion about this at Kansai airport and I think
> we came up with solutions. But it raised the question as to
> whether we definely want to carry on with this whole
> method of working.

If it buys us a more convincing class system, I think I am willing to
drop the other mechanisms.  However, this is not purely a technically
issue, so in due time we should present this issue to the board me
thinks.

All the best,

Christian


-- 

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