[tei-council] MD chapter revised: namespace rules

[James Cummings]

Lou Burnard wrote:
> James Cummings wrote:
>> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>> Inter alia, and as a straw man, I'd like to propose for discussion the
>>> following draconian rules about the use of namespaces in modification:
>>>
>>> 1. New elements may not be placed in the TEI namespace
>>
>> I can agree with that, though we may disagree on what is a 'new' element.
> 
> By "new" I mean an element not already defined by the Guidelines. What
> fiendishly cunning other case do you have in mind Dr Cummings?

A properly documented renaming, of course, whether by means of translation
or otherwise.

>>> 2. If new attributes are added to a TEI element, the resulting element
>>> must be moved out of the TEI namespace.
>>
>> I'm not convinced by that.  If I add a new attribute to a TEI element,
>> the
>> TEI element is still a TEI element.  It just has a new attribute and that
>> attribute is signalled as not being part of the TEI by itself being in a
>> different namespace.  my:newAtt="foo".  I don't see that the element
>> is now
>> so changed that it is no longer the TEI element.
> OK, this is a plausible argument and I am disposed to agree with you.

Oh good, that was easy.

>>> 3. Only modified elements which have undergone a clean modification [1]
>>> may remain in the TEI namespace.
>>
>> Agreed, but I think adding an attribute which is in a different namespace
>> is a clean modification.
> 
> Yes, though only if I agree with you on (2) above.

Didn't you just agree to that above?


> Yes. The draft does try to make this distinction clear.

Indeed it does.

>>> 4. If a TEI element is renamed, it may not remain in the TEI namespace,
>>> except that TEI namespaces are defined for systematic renaming of TEI
>>> elements into different languages.
>>
>> I'm still not convinced that TEI translations need separate namespaces.
> 
> Well, let us wait for reactions from others, because I currently still
> think that separate namespaces for separate translations makes a whole
> lot of sense, organizationally, politically, and technically. If we dont
> do that, then every new translation has to watch out for name collision
> with every other language now and in the future!

Well, I'd argue that it should only worry about it for the set of
guidelines from which it derives (and that version number should be
stored).  The guidelines for renaming should state that you can't rename
something to an existing name in another module (or translation?)  I
suppose translation namespaces would solve this problem.  :-(

> I am less sure about
> individual renamings, but still feel that basically if you don't use the
> names we have chosen for our elements, whether or not you make explicit
> the relationship between your name and ours, you are polluting the TEI
> namespace. And you have all the headaches about name collision. And my
> dimwitted TEI application has to go and read the ODD every time it
> processes a document to know what to do with your renaming.

Or you need to interchange your documents in TEI Interchange Format where
these renamings should have been un-done?

> I'm happy with the concept of a renaming subset schema. I just think it
> ought to use a different namespace for the renamed elements.

I suppose I could be convinced of this, but it certainly wasn't the way I
had envisioned it.


>> I think clean should include reversal of renamings, and that translations
>> are just a specialised form of renamings.
> I think adding this level of complexity may be just a level too far for
> many simple-minded processors.  But, as I said, let's wait to see what
> others think.

I'll be interested to hear what other council members think as well.

-James



>>> Comments? Alternative proposals?
>>
>> Alternative proposal:
>> 1. Entirely new elements should be in a new namespace
> yes
> 
>> 2. Renamed elements, properly documented should remain in TEI namespace
> no
> 
>> 3. Translations are just a form of renaming.
> yes, except that they are systematic
> 
>> 4. Adding new (namespaced) attributes to a TEI element, does not stop
>> that
>> TEI element being TEI.
> yes
> 
>> 5. Our definition of 'clean' modification should include renamings.
>>
> 
> no!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
> 


-- 
Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk