[tei-council] Tite (was re Influential Blogs?)

[Lou Burnard]

O'Donnell, Dan wrote:

> Sorry Sebastian, I've not been expressing myself well all week. Let me 
> try again: what I mean is that although in the accessTEI contract we 
> specified the Tite ODD rather than a specific schema or DTD as being the 
> reference for the programme (after some discussion in Council), it 
> turned out that that is not really very practical if the ODD is not 
> completely locked down. Like any project, AccessTEI wants its schemas to 
> change more slowly than the ODD might, especially if we on council pick 
> up and look at some of the ideas for development we've been discussing 
> here over the last while.

This makes no sense to me, sorry. The Tite ODD defines the Tite schema 
and you can't talk about them independently. The schema is generated 
from the ODD. The problem we discussed earlier is that the schema 
generated from a given ODD is also determined by the version of the 
Guidelines against which the ODD is processed. Hence the requirement to 
tie the ODD to a specific release of the Guidelines, as previously 
discussed.

> 
> In addition, the problems caused by defining an ODD by exclusion rather 
> than inclusion turned out to be quite serious in constructing a training 
> programme for the keyers in India: meaning (at the moment) that we 
> needed to do some hand tweaking (removing examples, for example, that 
> contained elements not found in Tite or used them in alternate ways when 
> Tite restricts prefers one method over the other).

As I already suggested to Perry, and you (I thought) agreed, the right 
way to handle this is to supply Tite-specific examples in the ODD. Which 
will generate appropriate documentation. And then regenerate the schemas 
  -- against the right version of the Guidelines!

By the way, I haven't seen any response to my comments of 3 March about 
the absence of a header in Tite.
Will we get to discuss this and other problems in the schema when it is 
presented to the Council?