[tei-council] a proposal for a change to ODD (copy of ticket I just put in SF)

[Gabriel Bodard]

This is not really an objection, but I note that I quite like being able 
to re-run my unchanged ODD against the new version of Roma and see the 
new element <surplus> added to my schema, because it's in the 
modules/classes that I've already said I want.

Is your proposal a replacement for, or a supplement to, the existing model?

On 2010-03-04 00:22, James Cummings wrote:
> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> surprises at future releases. New attributes _will_ pop up sometimes, but I think that's bearable.
>
> And of course content models and class memberships might change as
> well...but of course that is true at the moment.
>
>> As an alternative, if you dont like<*Ref>, we could add an attribute "copyOf" to<*Spec>, with the
>> same effect.
>
> I prefer your initial suggestion.
>
>> I believe that there is real demand for this (Tite is an excellent example
>> of a project which badly needs no surprises at TEI version changes),
>> that it is doable, and that it does not mean a rethink of ODD.
>
> I think all of those are good points. Though with the last I would hope
> that this would fit in with any changes we do make to ODD eventually.
> (but of course we can't predict that?) I've been trying to think of
> flaws with this setup which would cause problems.  The only anxiousness
> I have is something to do with what it means for processing if an ODD
> seems to be using both inherited and explicit models simultaneously.
>
> -James
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/