[tei-council] tei stemma model

[Conal Tuohy]

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 09:56 -0400, David J Birnbaum wrote:
> 1) Every <node> needs an identifier, to which @target can point.
> 
> 2) <node> elements might also want to be able to point to 
> <msDescription> elements elsewhere, either in the same document or in a 
> different document.
> 
> 3) Every <node> needs a label that can be rendered, and that cannot be 
> subject to character restrictions.
> 
> 4) One could use a different attribute in each of these functions, but 
> since they are all related (they are all essentially names of a 
> manuscript represented by a node), using three attributes where one 
> would do the job not only is inefficient, but also creates opportunities 
> for inconsistency (i.e., error).

OK I figured it was this consideration (parsimony) that was the
motivation, and that makes sense. I think there's something to be said
for using a reference system that's more consistent with the others used
in TEI, and keeping the label function distinct from the reference
function.

What about pointing TO stemma nodes from elsewhere? Might that not be
needed? And if so, wouldn't that really require use of @xml:id? I think
the advantage of @xml:id as a reference point is that it is defined in a
broader context (i.e. as part of the XML spec rather than in a TEI
schema) and can be used by non-schema-aware processors.

> 5) In the schema I present, the one attribute that I use has all the 
> desired properties of IDs, IDREFs, and plain text names simultaneously. 
> There are no character restrictions on the name, it is guaranteed to be 
> unique, and @target is guaranteed to point to the name of a <node>.
> 
> I'm not sure whether my reasoning was unclear or whether Council 
> understands it but disagrees. In the former case, I hope the preceding 
> elaboration is helpful (and if it is still unclear, please ask!). In the 
> latter, if Council understands the reasoning but nonetheless believes we 
> should use three attributes instead of one, so be it.

Well, yes, I guessed that was the justification (which does make sense),
but I think personally I would prefer the use of distinct @n and @xml:id
attributes, and tei:contaminates/@target having the type "URI". Is it
just me being picky?

Cheers

C