[tei-council] TEI Conformance
Conal.Tuohy at vuw.ac.nz
Sun Dec 3 21:50:34 EST 2006
"Conal Tuohy" <Conal.Tuohy at vuw.ac.nz> writes:
> Many customisations will call on pre-existing XML vocabularies. We
> pretend to define the namespace URIs of already-existing vocabularies,
> yet I strongly believe that we should allow customisations which use
> these vocabularies to be considered "conformant". e.g. I might make a
> "graphical" customisation which (amongst other things) imports some
> elements, or an "ontological" customisation which introduces some RDF
> XTM vocabulary.
> In short, I think it's just infeasible to constrain the namespaces
> "conformant" TEI customisations may introduce (except that they must
> use the empty namespace or the TEI namespace).
Christian Wittern wrote:
> But these are different XML vocabularies, not user extensions of the
Aren't they both? As I see it, they would (foreign) vocabularies which
some user has used to extend the TEI vocabulary.
> I thought our discussion was about what namespace to use for
> elements and attributes (re)defined using the ODD mechanism. For
> existing vocabularies, you would typically just pull in the schema
> file into your own extension, but not add a new namespace to them?
Perhaps, though not necessarily - XML namespaces and the schemas which
use them are 2 different things, after all.
I can think of cases where one would want to write one's own (TEI ODD)
schema for an extension which uses another, pre-existing, namespace. For
instance, one might define a TEI schema which includes some date
elements from the Qualified Dublin Core namespace
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/, such as dateCopyrighted,
dateSubmitted, or whatever, without wanting to import all the DC types,
and while actually constraining those elements further than the
Qualified DC schema
More information about the tei-council