[tei-council] Conformance .... the continuing saga

[Arianna Ciula]

 > 1. Revise MD to make explicit that there is more than one way of
 > building a schema from the TEI Guidelines. In fact there are three:
 > (a) write an ODD and process it with a conformant ODD processor
 > (b) write a DTD subset using parameter entities and ting and ting
 > (c) write a Relaxng schema which combines TEI RelaxNG modules ad lib

I support this proposal; it would make clear the evolution from P4 and 
precedent versions to P5 without simply throwing away the old methods, 
but giving them a context (even if marginal compared to schemas which 
can be used to validate TEI conformance --> so I agree with 2 as well). 
If we will go for it, we need to be sure other chapters (e.g. SG) are 
consistent with it of course.

It would be useful to have 3 (LB:"a description of what the current ODD 
processor does") somewhere in the guidelines (may be in one of the 
appendixes?).

Arianna

Lou Burnard wrote:
> Does no-one else on the Council have a view on this issue? Or is 
> everyone already on holiday?
> 
> Personally, I am reluctant to remove parametrisable schemas without a 
> bit more consultation. I have no problem with saying that true TEI 
> conformance necessitates production of an ODD. But I still feel we have 
> an obligation to make it feasible for people to customize the system 
> without using tools that only we provide. Which means that we need to 
> continue to provide customizable fragments, and describe how they can be 
> used. We *want* people to use TEI P5 at whatever level they feel 
> comfortable, right? For people still in DTDworld, the old method of 
> stitching together DTD fragments is just fine, and they can go on doing 
> it without having to learn any of this newfangled namespace stuff. 
> People who, by contrast, are hip to the RelaxNG groove will want to know 
> how to plug TEI stuff into their production line without having to 
> completely revise the whole shooting match. So my preferred course of 
> action would be:
> 
> 1. Revise MD to make explicit that there is more than one way of 
> building a schema from the TEI Guidelines. In fact there are three:
> (a) write an ODD and process it with a conformant ODD processor
> (b) write a DTD subset using parameter entities and ting and ting
> (c) write a Relaxng schema which combines TEI RelaxNG modules ad lib
> 
> 2. Of these ways, only (a) is guaranteed to result in a schema which can 
> be used to validate TEI conformance for your documents, but the others 
> may be helpful for local use. So we provide suggested ways of doing 
> them, in two distinct subsections of the document.
> 
> 3. We need, urgently, a definition of what exactly a "conformant ODD 
> processor" is supposed to do. This might include a description of what 
> the current ODD processor does, but that is less important.
> 
> If, on consultation, it is apparent that no-one cares about (2) above, 
> we can always throw away the lovingly-crafted prose I expect to be 
> generating this weekend, or put it somewhere else... but I think we must 
> have the consultation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

-- 
Dr Arianna Ciula
Research Associate
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS (UK)
Tel: +44 (0)20 78481945
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/cch