[tei-council] inconsistent relations

[Dot Porter]

This looks fine to me. No additional comments.

Dot

On 6/16/06, Lou's Laptop <lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
> The element <relation> has three attributes active, passive, and mutual.
> Mutual is used to say whether or not the relationship obtains equally
> between the participant. When it does not (i.e. the relationship is a
> directed one such as "employer" --  i.e. employer(A,B) is not the same
> as employer (B,A) -- ) then "active" specifies the active participants,
> and "passive" the passive ones. When it does, however, "active" and
> "passive" have no meaning, yet both are mandatory.
>
> Discussing this, Matthew D and I have come up with the following
> solution, which we propose to integrate into the new personographic section:
>
> a. Either "active" or "mutual" must be supplied
> b. if active is supplied, then passive must be supplied as well;
> otherwise, not
> c. mutual specifies a list of participant ids in the same way as the
> other two
>
> We can enforce (a) and (c) in RelaxNG; (b) requires a schematron rule.
>
> The only alternative solution we have identified would be to define two
> different elements for mutual and non-mutual relations.
>
>
> Is council broadly in agreement with this approach?
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>


-- 
***************************************
Dot Porter, Program Coordinator
Collaboratory for Research in Computing for Humanities
University of Kentucky
351 William T. Young Library
Lexington, KY  40506

dporter at uky.edu          859-257-9549
***************************************