[tei-council] solving the Birnbaum Biznai

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Mon May 22 11:15:13 EDT 2006

Syd Bauman wrote:
> On the other side are the forces, who include both me and David
> Birnbaum, I believe, who believe that the constraints the Guidelines
> describe are paramount
I believe in that too :-}

>>  2) use classes, with the proposed new meaning of what a "class" is
> With some caveats that Sebastian already knows of (if he understood
> my possibly inchorent mail :-), I think this is a Good Thing to Do
> even though it does not, on its own, handle <msIdentifier>.
what aspect of <msIdentifier> is not handled?
>>  3) introduce and implement module dependencies, and accept that it
>>     will be harder to guarantee schemas which don't have dangling
>>     links
> I must admit I don't understand the "harder" part here
If you add a dependency in "msdesc" on "namesdates",
but the user then deletes <settlement> from namesdates,
you are no better off than you are now. Module
dependency is a crude tool. That's the main reason
I don't  want to use it.

>  but I
> personally think implementing module dependencies in the ODD system
> is a good idea even if we (the TEI) choose not to use it. Any one of
> the hundreds of other XML languages that will be expressing
> themselves using our ODD system any day now may appreciate this
> capability.  :-)
sure. if you define what the precise behaviour of module dependency
> Sebastian has not mentioned another solution:
> 4) Not fix the "problem", but rather document it: say "yes, in order
>    to use module A you also need to load module Y" 
that's module dependency...
> While I am not super fond of (4), it is *much* more acceptable than
> (1).
I don't disagree with that choice. But it leaves the TEI
making invalid schemas rather easily, as James found.
> Am I correct that what you intend here is that when a module M is
> declared its <moduleSpec> would have a suggests= attribute which
> lists 0 or more other modules. Roma would then tick off the check
> boxes for the other modules whenever M was selected? This 
> is halfway
> between (3) true syntactic dependency (you get an error if you select
> M without one of its dependencies) and (4) just document it, and I
> think may be a very good way to go.
surely, I can do that. its just "people who bought this module
also bought module".
>   of the issue. But supporting DTD extesions seems all but silly.)
I think I'd agree; but would note that supporting it
there is probably not much more work than in schema.

Sebastian Rahtz      

Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service

More information about the tei-council mailing list