Re: [tei-council] rework of standoff proposal

There is a (probably) related ticket: http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/501/ I’m happy to hand this over to Lou! Peter

Am 31.05.2015 um 10:52 schrieb Martin Holmes :

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 >> >> >> >> > > >

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived