[tei-council] @key to be deprecated: @loc involved too?

Fri Sep 23 11:31:08 EDT 2011

I've now filed a bug ticket here:

<http://purl.org/TEI/BUGS/3413346>

Cheers,
Martin

On 11-09-22 11:50 PM, Laurent Romary wrote:
> Especially when one of the two examples in the guidelines using the @loc attribute is actually pointing to an ID! see http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/TC.html#TCSCWL
> Add this to the ticket...
>
> Le 22 sept. 2011 à 18:36, Martin Holmes a écrit :
>
>> I see that @loc is also:
>>
>> 1–∞ occurrences of data.word
>>
>> Should we be thinking about this changing to data.pointer too?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 11-09-20 09:30 AM, Laurent Romary wrote:
>>> I follow Martin here (simpler system..;). Without any prejudice on the final outcome, I would urge him to file a ticket with the various elements he has mentioned in his last posts.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Laurent
>>>
>>> Le 20 sept. 2011 à 17:31, Martin Holmes a écrit :
>>>
>>>> I think we're talking about trying to arrive at a much simpler system in
>>>> the very long run (hence deprecation); once again, here, we have
>>>> multiple ways of doing the same thing, some of which we're proposing to
>>>> recommend (URIs in @ref) and the other of which we're going to continue
>>>> to allow (magic tokens in @key). One of the most common complaints we
>>>> hear both from experts and from new users is that TEI has too many ways
>>>> of doing the same thing, so where one method is clearly superior to the
>>>> other, we should surely plan to move towards it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> On 11-09-20 08:24 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure that I agree with Martin's analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Are there any places where @key is permitted but not @ref? if there
>>>>> are, then I agree that @ref should be added as an alternative
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Changing *all* examples using @key to examples using @ref seems like
>>>>> an over reaction to me though I agree that we need to increase the
>>>>> number of examples using @ref=my:uri:notation
>>>>>
>>>>> I had interpreted the sense of the preceding discussion to be that we
>>>>> understood why people might want to supply a privately magic token as
>>>>> the value for @key but that they needed to be reminded that an
>>>>> alternative slightly less magical option would be to use @ref with the
>>>>> proposed URI syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/09/11 16:19, David Sewell wrote:
>>>>>> Should the issue of deprecating @key be submitted for discussion to
>>>>>> TEI-L before any final decision is made? So far as I can see, this has
>>>>>> been mentioned only once on TEI-L in posts by Gabby and James, see
>>>>>> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1102&L=TEI-L&P=R297
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, I'm becoming convinced on this. It looks like we need a ticket in
>>>>>>> SF, along the lines of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. @key will be deprecated. (Still not exactly clear on that process.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. @ref will be added wherever @key is currently allowed, but @ref is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. All examples showing @key will be changed to show @ref, and magic
>>>>>>> tokens without colons will be replaced with magic tokens that have colons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. The documentation for @ref will be expanded to include an explanation
>>>>>>> and examples of URIs which are not URLs (by which I presume we mean:
>>>>>>> URIs which do not resolve to anything that can be located on the network).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have I missed anything? Does this replace or subsume any existing tickets?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11-09-19 08:49 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/09/11 16:12, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll play devil's advocate on this. I think using URIs (in the
>>>>>>>>>> form of URNs), even just locally constructed ones like
>>>>>>>>>> foo:blort:1234 is a much better system than just bare keys which
>>>>>>>>>> are just as much magic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Isn't foo:blort:1234 just magic too? If I've understood the proposal
>>>>>>>>> correctly, foo: and blort: don't resolve to anything meaningful; isn't
>>>>>>>>> foo:blort:1234 just a magic key that happens to have colons in it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that is what I meant be 'just as much magic'. They are both
>>>>>>>> magic. However, the URN-style magic key is a faceted one. (I know
>>>>>>>> you could just make your @key value do this as well.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Backward-compatibility is the obvious one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, agreed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In that case, we're going to have an escalating tension between the
>>>>>>>>> Birnbaum doctrine and the need to clean up problems in P5 (like this
>>>>>>>>> one, perhaps, if you see it as a problem).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but the Birnbaum Doctrine doesn't say that we're not
>>>>>>>> allow to break backwards compatibility, just that we should have
>>>>>>>> a deprecation structure to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You actually caught me doing that (inadvertently) in an early version of
>>>>>>>>> the Image Markup Tool, IIRC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I remember that, naughty Martin. :-P (He says quickly
>>>>>>>> hiding any of his code where he certainly sins in greater orders
>>>>>>>> of magnitude.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I agree that's completely wrong when
>>>>>>>>> using @ref; but I would argue that's why @key is helpful. When you're
>>>>>>>>> still working out the structure of your repository and the relative
>>>>>>>>> locations of files and subcollections, not having to be precise about
>>>>>>>>> the path to a particular @xml:id is very handy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Surely since you *can* do this ref="foo" then people will just do
>>>>>>>> that while they are still working out their repository structure
>>>>>>>> or system of magic keys?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And if you get rid of
>>>>>>>>> @key, people are just going to use @n for the same job, I bet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What people abuse @n for something that is not a potentially
>>>>>>>> non-unique number or other label, but instead some magic token to
>>>>>>>> identify specific classes of elements?  Never... no one would
>>>>>>>> ever do that!  I mean that would be like using @rend to refer to
>>>>>>>> _output_ rendition not source rendition. *grin*  Erm, yeah, ok, I
>>>>>>>> see your point. People would certainly do that, yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still think using a URN-like URI on @ref is better because it
>>>>>>>> forces you to consider _some_ form of classification or
>>>>>>>> documentation principle. But yours are all good arguments for
>>>>>>>> maintaining @key.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>>
>>>>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Martin Holmes
>>>> University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>>> (mholmes at uvic.ca)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>>>
>>> Laurent Romary
>>> INRIA&   HUB-IDSL
>>> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Holmes
>> University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>> (mholmes at uvic.ca)
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA&  HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>
>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)