[tei-council] 2.4.1 or 2.5.0?

[Lou Burnard]

I don't find Hugh's wording at all clear. What is "the parent element"  
if not the <certainty> element ? And these attributes are not only used 
for expressions of certainty.

I *think* what we intend to mean is something like this:


(1) <someElement xml:id="x">
   <someRangingElement target="#x"/>
</someElement>

Whatever "someRangingElement" says is applicable to <someElement>

(2) <someElement xml:id="x">
   <someRangingElement target="#x" match="@foo"/>
</someElement>

Whatever "someRangingElement" says is applicable to attribute @foo of 
<someElement>

(3) <someElement xml:id="x">
   <someRangingElement  match="@foo"/>
</someElement>

Same as (2)

(4) <someElement xml:id="x">
   <someRangingElement  />
</someElement>

Same as (1)


(5)  <someElement xml:id="x"/>
   <someRangingElement target="#x"/>

same as (1)

(6)  <someElement xml:id="x"/>
   <someRangingElement match="@foo"/>

Whatever "someRangingElement" says is applicable to attribute @foo of 
the parent of <someElement>

(7)  <someElement xml:id="x"/>
   <someRangingElement />

Whatever "someRangingElement" says is applicable to the parent of 
<someElement>





On 24/07/13 15:56, Hugh Cayless wrote:
> Surely that should read something like:
>
> If @target is not present, a relative XPath in @match has the parent element as its context. If neither attribute is present, the expression of certainty applies to the context of the certainty element itself, i.e. its parent element.
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:51 , Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Is that what the prose in att.scoping says?
>>
>> @match	supplies an arbitrary XPath expression identifying a set of
>> nodes, selected within the context identified by the @target attribute
>> if this is supplied, or within the context of the element bearing this
>> attribute if it is not.
>>
>> If neither attribute is present, the expression of certainty applies to
>> the context of the certainty element itself, i.e. its parent element.
>>
>> If it does mean what Lou says below, it certainly needs to be clarified...
>>
>> G
>>
>> On 2013-07-24 15:47, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>> Wording can always be improved, but I think the intention in att.rsnging
>>> is quite clear.
>>>
>>> -- if both @match and @target are supplied, then @match is searched
>>> within the context of @target
>>> -- if only @match is present, then @match is searched within the context
>>> of the parent of the current node
>>> -- if neither is present, then the context is the current node
>>>
>>> On 24/07/13 15:44, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>>> That's how I interpret it to, but some people interpret the words in
>>>> att.scoping, "within the context of the element bearing this attribute"
>>>> as meaning the context is the `<precision>` element, not its parent.
>>>> (This is confused by the fact that it explicitly says the context is the
>>>> parent element if both @match and @target attributes are omitted.)
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Lou, but I think the wording could be improved on
>>>> att.scoping (and therefore the example there fixed as well).
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-07-24 15:40, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>> No, wait, why do we think it's wrong as it is?
>>>>>
>>>>> See definition for @match on att.ranging -- it says that if only @match
>>>>> is preent, the context is the parent element, which in the second
>>>>> example would be <date>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24/07/13 15:38, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>>>>> So wait, I'm fixing the example from saying match="@notBefore" to saying
>>>>>> match="../@notBefore"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (The opposite of what you told me to correct it to on the ticket?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2013-07-24 15:37, James Cummings wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/07/13 15:32, Hugh Cayless wrote:
>>>>>>>> Should you also fix the example that's in there now, and has an incorrect @match?
>>>>>>> Yes, if you (Gabby), could fix the example (especially if adding
>>>>>>> an additional one) that'd be good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:29 , Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay done. As I note on the ticket, I agree with Lou that discussion of
>>>>>>>>> these attributes is needed in the guidelines, and I haven't had time to
>>>>>>>>> add that. (And I dare say won't before Friday.) I leave the ticket open
>>>>>>>>> as it remains a priority.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should we maybe include Thomas Carlson's example in the elementSpec, as
>>>>>>>>> a start? That seems safe enough...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2013-07-24 15:22, James Cummings wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I guess I don't mind if Gabby commits the change quickly. As
>>>>>>>>>> Sebastian is doing the release on Friday that leaves us all
>>>>>>>>>> tomorrow for extra proofreading!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sebastian is on holiday today and thursday, so probably
>>>>>>>>>> can't/won't comment and is planning to do the release on Friday.
>>>>>>>>>>         This leaves plenty of time for people to point out errors in
>>>>>>>>>> the generation of the outputs. Martin can attest that I made good
>>>>>>>>>> with my promise of a Tunnock's dark chocolate covered caramel
>>>>>>>>>> wafer last time for finding lots of typos. (In case that
>>>>>>>>>> encourages you!)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Last release we noticed, during the release period, that a typo
>>>>>>>>>> meant the links to the translated versions on the index.html
>>>>>>>>>> pages were broken (fixed during release).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please do have a look at the outputs at
>>>>>>>>>> http://bits.nsms.ox.ac.uk:8080/jenkins/ and under
>>>>>>>>>> http://bits.nsms.ox.ac.uk:8080/jenkins/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/release/
>>>>>>>>>> and check that all web pages work as expected, all the schemas
>>>>>>>>>> and generated content do what they are supposed to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -James
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/13 14:39, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think if we do 2.4.1 this week (as it now seems), then 2.5.0 should
>>>>>>>>>>> wait until the next cycle, probably at the end of the year--when we'll
>>>>>>>>>>> have a bunch of new interesting things to include, as well as just
>>>>>>>>>>> correcting the oversight in `<precision>`.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's still stuff to talk about re responsibility, relation and match,
>>>>>>>>>>> for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2013-07-24 13:40, Syd Bauman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, this is a moot point as we're now frozen and it's not in. But
>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I think both GB and LB are right, so I'm in favor of
>>>>>>>>>>>> a) adding att.ranging to <precision>, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> b) not doing so now, so we can make sure the examples and discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>            make sense, and consider deprecating @degree
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can make a 2.5.0 release in a week or two, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dr Gabriel BODARD
>>>>>>>>> Researcher in Digital Epigraphy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Digital Humanities
>>>>>>>>> King's College London
>>>>>>>>> Boris Karloff Building
>>>>>>>>> 26-29 Drury Lane
>>>>>>>>> London WC2B 5RL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
>>>>>>>>> E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
>>>>>>>>> http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 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
>> -- 
>> Dr Gabriel BODARD
>> Researcher in Digital Epigraphy
>>
>> Digital Humanities
>> King's College London
>> Boris Karloff Building
>> 26-29 Drury Lane
>> London WC2B 5RL
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
>> E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
>>
>> http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
>> http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
>>
>> -- 
>> 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