[tei-council] Legal references to a customisation

[O'Donnell, Dan]

The binding intent is that the vendor produce output that validates 
against both the dtd and the schema. So you'd recommend listing them 
explicitly? We expect to do some more development work in initial stages 
of the contract, of course.

David Sewell wrote:
>> I'm negotiating the contract for AccessTEI. If you wanted to indicate in
>> a contract a specific agreed upon version of a specific TEI
>> customisation, what would you choose: the ODD, the RNG? This is to
>> eliminate ambiguity in the case of disputes. I would say that the ODD is
>> canonical, right?
>>     
>
> What is the binding intent of the contract language in question? I
> assume that it is to bind the vendor to deliver XML files that are valid
> per one or more schemas? I should think that this is a clear requirement
> in the case of a DTD or a RELAX NG schema. We supply schema(s), and the
> vendor XML is either valid or not valid against the schema(s).
>
> If the reference specification is the ODD, then would the contract need
> to say anything about whose responsibility it is to generate a valid
> schema from the ODD?
>
> It's a bit like the difference between expecting a contractor to build a
> house based on printed blueprints vs. to build a house based on a
> computer file that can generate blueprints when processed by the
> appropriate software.
>
>   

-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Associate Professor of English
University of Lethbridge

Chair and CEO, Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org/)
Co-Chair, Digital Initiatives Advisory Board, Medieval Academy of America
President-elect (English), Society for Digital Humanities/Société pour l'étude des médias interactifs (http://sdh-semi.org/)
Founding Director (2003-2009), Digital Medievalist Project (http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/)

Vox: +1 403 329-2377
Fax: +1 403 382-7191 (non-confidental)
Home Page: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/