[tei-council] conformance chapter

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Lou Burnard wrote:
> To get your juices flowing, I have the following immediate thoughts:
>
> a. Let's get rid of SGML
>
> Much of the current chapter is concerned with the complications 
> inherent is saying that a TEI document must conform to an SGML DTD. Do 
> we want to retain all that baggage for P5?
no. say it must conform to a schema following one of the ISO or W3C 
standards for XML schema languages.
>
> 1. A *TEI-conformant* document must be a valid XML document.
>
> 2. An SGML document whose ESIS is the same as that of a given 
> TEI-conformant document is *TEI-compliant*
>
> 3. A TEI-compliant document must be converted to an XML representation 
> before it can be validated for TEI conformance.
I'm not sure I'd bother with this. but OK, if you think its an issue
>
> b. Transmission and packing
>
> The current chapter also talks about transmission formats, and in 
> particular ways of packing TEI document components together. I am not 
> sure that we want to keep that either, since whatever we say will 
> rapidly be as outmoded as the current vague reference to SDIF is.
>
drop it all
> But if we do want to say something, then it would presumably be here 
> that we should discuss that old chestnut about how a document instance 
> identifies the schema used to validate it.
delegate  to W3C  and ISO, but also see my note aboyt the TEI Statement 
of Conformance
>
> c. Sanctity of the header
>
> The current chapter (in 28.3) makes two (2) requirements of a TEI 
> conformant document "after modification" -- both relating to the 
> header and mandatory parts of it. Do we still believe these? To put 
> the question more acutely, if an ODD defines the TEI Header out of 
> existence is a document conforming to it ipso facto no longer 
> TEI-conformant?
do you believe in my levels? ie conformancy is no longer binary?

is a header where the content of all elements is empty TEI-conformant?
>
> Would be on comparatively safer ground if we said that the abstract 
> model is defined in terms of the existing classes. So you can change 
> elements' membership in a class, but you can't change the relationship 
> between classes?
>
I think I need a drink before I answer that... at first sight, yes.


-- 
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
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk