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

[Dot Porter]

I fully support this proposed change. Many of the customizations I've
made for projects include only a few elements from whatever module, so
most of the ODD is specifying what to take out. This would make the
process much more simple, if I'm understanding it correctly.

Dot

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:38 AM, James Cummings
<James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> On 4 Mar 2010, at 15:44, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>> 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?
>> definitely a supplement. existing ODDs work as before
>
> Yes, I mean I would assume that you can have ODDs written exactly
> as before and saying <moduleRef key="foo"> then you want the
> entire module and whatever is it in the future.  If instead you
> only want certain elements you wouldn't have the moduleRef at
> all, and instead just have lots of elementRefs.  Or am I
> misunderstanding the mechanism?
>
> -James
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>



-- 
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Dot Porter (MA, MSLS)          Metadata Manager (on leave)
Digital Humanities Observatory (RIA), Regus House, 28-32 Upper
Pembroke Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
-- A Project of the Royal Irish Academy --
Phone: +353 1 234 2444        Fax: +353 1 234 2400
http://dho.ie          Email: dot.porter at gmail.com
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*