Re: [tei-council] rework of standoff proposal

31 May 2015

      It _sounds_ like a good idea, but...

Will we break existing ODDs somehow?

On 2015-05-31 10:49 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
...
Anyone for adding <text> to model.resourceLike and simplifying the
content model of <TEI> accordingly?
On 31/05/15 15:44, Lou Burnard wrote:
...
I was about to do precisely that. Maybe I should have come down to the
lobby to suggest it!
On 31/05/15 15:42, Martin Holmes wrote:
...
I think it ought to have a ticket and at least a cursory yes from the
rest of Council, don't you?
I'd put the proposed changes on a ticket along with the rationale,
then do it if no-one objects. Then we'll have documented why we did
it, for the benefit of future generations. Think of the children.
Cheers,
Martin
On 2015-05-31 10:40 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
...
+1 from me.
shall I have a crack at it?
On 31/05/15 15:39, Martin Holmes wrote:
...
Peter's point is a good one: if we do use teiHeader, we'll have to
slightly revise its definition. But that's not too complicated. To be
honest, you can already have a document that consists only of a
teiHeader and a <fsdDecl>.
This of course means that the definition of model.resourceLike:
"groups non-textual elements which may appear together with a
  header and a text to constitute a TEI document."
is misleading, because it suggests you must have a <text>, which is
not true.
So I think it's time to look at these core definitions and readjust
them slightly to take account of the range of different sorts of thing
that can constitute a standalone TEI file nowadays.
Cheers,
Martin
On 2015-05-31 10:19 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:
...
I’m glad you like it :)
I’m d’accord with all of it but still feel a little bit uneasy about
having teiHeader instead of standOffHeader because a teiHeader is
„…making up an electronic title page for every TEI-conformant
document.“ — and the standoff part does not need to be a
TEI-conformant document (while it *can* be).
So, I’d propose to keep the name standOffHeader and adjust the
content model to macro.teiHeaderContent. (This macro is not in place
yet but I think it’d be a good idea and it be constructed exactly as
the current content model of teiHeader)
Best
Peter
> Am 31.05.2015 um 01:58 schrieb Laurent Romary
> :
>
> Dear all,
> I am really pleased that you managed to put this effort on this. The
> discussion on Friday showed that this is a conceptual move that the
> council had to make it its own thing (“s’approprier” in French).
>
>> Le 30 mai 2015 à 23:20, Peter Stadler  a écrit :
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> a Council working group (PFS, LB, MH, FC, SM, PWS) just created an
>> alternative proposal as the "Ann Arbor" branch at
>> https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/tree/AnnArbor. The
>> changes in detail:
>>
>> * killed mapStruct
>
> Indeed. We need to wait until we have an appropriate concept for
> this. I see Andreas this week and we’ll wrap on this.
>
>> * renamed annotationGrp —> listAnnotation
>
> I’ll tell Thomas ASAP so that he can have the named changed on the
> current ISO proposal.
> Does the semantics ofxxxGrp reflects that there are heterogeneous
> content objects there? (typically components of the triptych
> target-annotation-body in OA)
>
>> * renamed model.annotationPart —> model.annotation
>
> I wasn’t happy with the xxxPart here. Sounds good!
>
>> * got rid of dash in module name
>
> I don’t really care :-} (reminds me of a song by Elton John on the
> “Single Man” album
>
>> * removed class att.confidence in favor of
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/561/
>
> I am looking forward to have this feature implemented.
>
>> * added some more elements to model.annotation
>
> In any case this “module” is likely to be customized when used. It’s
> really open. So why not.
>
>> * removed standOffHeader in favor of teiHeader(!!)
>
> Interesting… (not in the British sense). Let’s move ahead with this.
>
>>
>> We did not update the examples yet.
>
> That’s easy to do and I can contribute if there is a consensus on
> the above decisions.
>
>>
>> I’m curious about Laurent’s reaction and will probably have a conf
>> call in the next week with him (— Laurent?!)
>
> Kudos to the council. How much of this can I take for stable in
> current implementations?
> Best wishes to all,
> Laurent
>
>>
>> Best
>> Peter
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA
> laurent.romary@inria.fr
>
>
>
>