[tei-council] death of <*Struct>: pending problems & suggested solutions
Syd Bauman
Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu
Mon Sep 11 06:15:26 EDT 2006
> Zone=
> -----
> Question: Should the zone= attribute of <timeStruct> be retained as a
> new zone= attribute of <time>?
> Answer: No.
The zone= attribute is no more (it hasn't been for awhile). In
addition, I've
* updated the prose of ST (The TEI infrastructure) that happened to
refer to it as an example of data.enumerated.
* Replaced erroneous references to ISO 8601 with proper references to
W3C Schema part 2.
* Replaced an erroneous reference to RELAXNG with correct reference to
W3C Schema.
> Type=
> -----
> Question: Should the type= attribute of <dateStruct> and <timeStruct>
> be retained?
> Solution: Yes; make <date> and <time> members of class att.typed (I
> am the only one who complained that subtype= was overkill,
> so ...)
and
> Type= of att.datePart
> ----- -- ------------
> Question: Should <day>, <distance>, <hour>, <minute>, <month>,
> <occasion>, <second>, <week>, and <year>, have a type=
> attribute?
> Answer: No, remove type= from att.datePart.
> (Note: if they *should* have type=, they should get it from
> att.typed, although I still am queasy about subtype=.)
Done.
Except that I put <day>, <distance>, <occasion>, and <offset> into
att.typed.
> Ranges
> ------
> Problem: We need to think through <dateRange> and <timeRange> with
> respect to data.duration, ISO 8601 range formats, and
> notBefore= & notAfter=.
>
> Proposal: * delete <dateRange> and <timeRange>
> * add <date> and <time> to att.datable (thus they get
> notBefore= and notAfter=)
> * alter att.datePart so that rather than having
> attribute value { data.temporal | data.duration }
> it defines two attributes
> attribute value { data.temporal }
> attribute dur { data.duration }
> * add Schematron rule to <date> and <time> that insists
> that either ( value= and/or dur= ) OR ( notBefore= and/or
> notAfter= ) is present, but not both
Done, mildly differently:
* Added <date> and <time> to att.datable
* split value= of att.datePart into value= and dur=
- also fixed <valDesc>s of other two occurences of dur=, which
perhaps with this one should be factored into a clas of its own
- decided unilaterally that specification of both value= and dur=
indicates a span of time by start time & duration
* deleted <dateRange> and <timeRange>
- this included moving from= and to= into att.datable
- Note to Lou: I left the dateRange.xml and timeRange.xml files
in the SF subversion repository as we may want to copy the exact=
attribute out of it before nuking it
* After talking it over with Lou, I did *not* implement any method for
validation that ( value= and/or dur= ) OR ( notBefore= and/or
notAfter= ) is present, but not both
> <offset>
> --------
> Question: Should <offset> be a member of att.datePart?
> Answer: No, remove it.
Done.
> Full= of att.datePart
> ----- -- ------------
> Question: Should full= exist?
> Answer: No, kill it.
Done.
> Precision, accuracy, exactness
> ---------- --------- ---------
> Problem: We still need to sort out this precision/exactness stuff.
Still true.
More information about the tei-council
mailing list