[tei-council] renaming and namespaces

[David J Birnbaum]

Dear TEI Council,

I'm also with Lou on the question of renaming. Since namespaces are 
intended to avoid collision and renaming can create collision, it would 
seem wisest not to put renamed elements in the tei namespace.

Best,

David

Dot Porter wrote:
> I also agree with James on points 1, 2, and 3. I'm on the fence on
> point 4 - whether renamed elements should be in a different namespace
> - but I think Lou makes a very good point about name collision which
> has me leaning towards renaming = different namespace. It's a little
> more work up front, perhaps, but would save a lot of headache in the
> long run.
>
> Dot
>
> On 4/10/07, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> 
> 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?
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>
>>    You are right that changed content models, etc.
>> > are dirty changes.  However, if the change is to remove an element 
>> from
>> > some classes, or limit an open attribute value list, or anything 
>> similar
>> > which constrains it, then that is a clean modification because the TEI
>> > content still validates against tei_all.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. The draft does try to make this distinction clear.
>>
>>
>> >> 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! 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> > They should be conformant according to the Renaming Subset schema.  If
>> > something is simply a renamed element/attribute and it otherwise is
>> > identical to the TEI original (and documented with ODD/equiv) then 
>> I do not
>> > feel it needs to be in a different namespace.  It is, for all 
>> intents and
>> > purposes, the TEI element.  If I have <div type="chapter"> and instead
>> > rename this <chapter> keeping everything else the same, does this 
>> really
>> > need a new namespace?  The original view of the Renaming Subset was 
>> that it
>> > didn't.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> >
>> >> [1]A  "clean" modification is defined in chapter MD as one which 
>> results
>> >> in a schema that matches a proper subset of the documents matched 
>> by an
>> >> unmodified schema.
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> >> 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
>>
>
>