[tei-council] [Fwd: Re: more on constraint]

Laurent Romary laurent.romary at loria.fr
Tue Apr 21 14:20:01 EDT 2009


That's an easy one: I take it!
Basically you should not expect a TEI external mechanism to tell you  
what you should do (e.g. to which kind of processor you should forward  
a constrain) with the content of a constraint. One of the reason may  
be that you may have a more refined ontology of such rules then the  
sole difference made by schema syntaxes (e.g. just error messages, vs.  
repair proposals).

Le 21 avr. 09 à 17:00, Sebastian Rahtz a écrit :

> from syd
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: more on constraint
> Date: 	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:59:01 -0400
> From: 	Syd Bauman <Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu>
> Reply-To: 	Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu
> To: 	James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk, Sebastian Rahtz
> <sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
> References: 	<18925.55131.974295.3530 at emt.wwp.brown.edu>
> <49EDD99E.30309 at oucs.ox.ac.uk> <49EDDC7C.2060905 at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
>
>
>
> [Feel free to forward to Council if this is an interesting question,
> feel free not to if it's already been answered and I just don't know
> about it.]
>
> Why do we need scheme= on <constraint>, BTW? Isn't the namespace of
> the content sufficient? (In fact, not that I'm suggesting it's a good
> idea, but couldn't the constraints in various languages be tucked
> into a single <constraint>?)
>
> <constraint>
>   <rng:oneOrMore ref="humbug"/>
>   <sch:assert test="count(./tei:humbug)=17">wrong number of
>     humbugs!</sch:assert>
> </constraint>
>
>
> -- 
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council



More information about the tei-council mailing list