Re: [tei-council] Release?

In what way are you "screwed"? If it's JSON, I'd like to be told that, so I can extract it and feed it into a JSON parser, if it's Turtle, likewise. If you're saying you can't process it with XSLT, that's possibly true, but so what? On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:

My vote remains for 3 over 2. There is clearly disagreement about how precisely we want to recommend the scope of a chunk of xenodata should be expressed, if at all; whether a new attribute is needed; whether we can use or modify existing mechanisms etc.

Specifying the format of the content of the xenodata is something (I thought) we'd already explicitly ruled out in earlier discussion -- either it uses some predefined XML namespace or it doesn't. In the latter case you're screwed anyway.

On 08/10/15 17:23, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

All but one of the original voters went for 2 or 3 below, with 3 or 2 as their second favorite, so I'd say we do have consensus for releasing xenoData. We seem now to be split on whether or not to release it with @scope minus any recommended values. My view remains that @scope is not something I would probably ever use, but I could be convinced that other people might if it had a better set of values. I'd find an attribute that told me what the format of the data inside <xenoData> was much more useful. But we can proceed incrementally, and that's fine. Anybody want to change their minds between #2 and #3?

2) release xenodata with @scope, but without a list of recommended values

...

3) release xenodata without @scope

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Lou Burnard < lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

As we seem to be some way from a consensus on the right way forward, may I

...

propose a further vote?

Option 1. Remove the attribute @scope for now.

Option 2. Remove the xenoData element for now.

We can then thrash out what is clearly a somewhat divisive issue at the ftf, targetting the next release for its resolution.

My vote is (now) for option 1, but I can live with option 2.

On 08/10/15 16:14, Hugh Cayless wrote:

Syd, your input is *always* welcome, and it is possible that we're all

...

wrong and you're right. If so, you get to sing "Nyaa, nyaa, told you so!" at us.

It's not self-evident to me. I'm always learning new stuff about TEI. What's the advantage of data.enumerated in the absence of a valList?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Syd Bauman wrote:

I do not know if my comments are welcome on this matter any more,

...

since I am being completely over-ruled on this. So feel free to continue to ignore me. But that said, could we at least make the datatype of @scope data.enumerated, not data.word? I'll argue why if needed, but I'm hoping this is self-evident. (Of course, I think the whole idea of having such an attribute *without* a suggested values list is self-evidently stupid, so apparently my barometer on self-evidentness is mis-calibrated.)

-- 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

-- 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

-- 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