[tei-council] Example of <app> with multiple <lem>s

[Martin Holmes]

Thanks Elena. Based on this, I'm inclined to rephrase the constraint 
like this:

   <constraintSpec scheme="isoschematron" ident="only1lem">
       <constraint xmlns:sch="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron">
         <sch:assert test="count( tei:lem) &lt;  2">
            Only one &lt;lem&gt; element may appear as a direct child of
            &lt;app&gt;.
         </sch:assert>
       </constraint>
     </constraintSpec>

as a quick way to get us back to valid builds, and then raise a ticket 
to look at the more complicated issues. Thorts?

Cheers,
Martin

On 13-06-13 02:29 AM, Pierazzo, Elena wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> The example is correct. I thought that we meant <lem> as direct child
> of <app>: if you have <rdgGrp> it is quite normal that you have
> multiple <lem>. In fact the normal content of <app> is 1 <lem> (if
> present) and many <rdg>, but if there are <rdgGrp> you may want to
> have sub lemmas reconstructed or attested, in order to be able to
> build a meaningful stemma codicum which is based on common readings.
>
> I hope this helps. Elena
>
> -- Dr Elena Pierazzo Lecturer in Digital;app&gt; Humanities Department in
> Digital Humanities King's College London 26-29 Drury Lane London WC2B
> 5RL
>
> Phone: 0207-848-1949 Fax: 0207-848-2980
> elena.pierazzo at kcl.ac.uk<mailto:elena.pierazzo at kcl.ac.uk>
> www.kcl.ac.uk/ddh
>
> On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:35, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
> Hi Elena,
>
> We've been having a discussion on the Council list about an example
> in the app.xml Spec:
>
> <http://lists.village.virginia.edu/pipermail/tei-council/2013/017954.html>
>
>  Sebastian has summarized the problem like this:
>
> "The example at
>
> <http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-app.html>
>
> has multiple <lem> inside an <app>. This contradicts a constraint in
> the schema which says that <ap> can have at most one descendent
> <lem>
>
> Can you give us your opinion? Is that example meaningful, or is the
> constraint valid?"
>
> I'm checking with you because it seems as though the original example
> under discussion came from you, back in 2008:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
r4552 | louburnard | 2008-04-29 16:11:49 -0700 (Tue, 29 Apr 2008) | 2 lines
>
> add examples from Elena
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  Do you remember this example, and does it still make sense to you?
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
>