[tei-council] Use of @cRef

[Martin Holmes]

I'm not sure whether I want to introduce the explanation of private URI 
schemes into the survey; it's really just trying to discover what people 
are currently doing with @cRef, and presumably nobody is using it that 
way; if they know about private URI schemes, they would naturally tend 
to put them into @target, I think.

But the issue of private URI schemes is definitely something else we 
have to deal with. Whatever we do with @cRef, I think we should be 
encouraging people using private URI schemes to provide the same sort of 
canonical resolution pattern for any private scheme used in e.g. @target 
as they would when using @cRef in the traditional way. 
@target="foo:blort" is no less cryptic than @cRef="blort". This might 
require that we review at least the name of <cRefPattern>, turning it 
into <refPattern>, <uriSchemePattern>, or something like that.

Not that I'm complying with this myself, of course. I'm guilty of using 
both @target="foo:blort" and @cRef="blort" without a <refsDecl>, and I 
should be ashamed of myself.

Cheers,
Martin

On 12-02-01 02:21 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>
> I like the survey, but should it be explained that data.pointer
> can take a URI of the form foo:blort etc?  i.e. that their @cRefs
> probably can be easily represented as pointers?
>
> -James
>
>
> On 31/01/12 16:56, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The attribute @cRef (which appears on<ref>,<ptr>,<gloss>   and<term>)
>> is currently a bit of a mess. I've started a bug for this:
>>
>> <http://purl.org/TEI/BUGS/3480650>
>>
>> Changes have to be made to @cRef -- for one thing, the attribute is
>> separately defined for each element, with different datatypes. It has
>> been suggested that we no longer actually need it, because its original
>> function (storing a canonical reference from a scheme defined in a
>> <refsDecl>   element in the TEI header) can perfectly well be handled
>> using @target, using a private URI scheme. However, it's arguable that
>> having an attribute whose purpose is explicitly to handle private URI
>> schemes (as opposed to official IANA-registered schemes) might be
>> useful. If we were to switch to recommending @target and private URI
>> schemes, I think we'd have to encourage people to provide resolution
>> patterns for such schemes as we currently do with @cRef.
>>
>> It would be helpful to get a sense of what people are currently doing
>> with @cRef, and how changes are likely to affect existing projects. I
>> thought about a little survey we could circulate to TEI-L -- something
>> like this:
>>
>> <http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?PREVIEW_MODE=DO_NOT_USE_THIS_LINK_FOR_COLLECTION&sm=Fpob1swo7qmZTEW4PbIxL9EDe24HTX6Wad91ehsQajc%3d>
>>
>> What do you think about this? (Assuming you can see the survey -- I'm
>> not sure exactly how SurveyMonkey works in this regard, never having
>> used it before. If you can't see it, let me know and I'll copy/paste the
>> questions into an email.)
>>
>> I'd like to make some decisions about @cRef at the April meeting if
>> that's possible, so a bit of prep now seems like a good idea.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>
>