Re: [tei-council] rework of standoff proposal

31 May 2015


      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