Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

#288 deprecate use of gram except as a child of gramGrp

GREEN
open-accepted
Syd Bauman
5(default)
2013-12-08
2011-07-23
Kevin Hawkins
No

<gramGrp> is allowed as a child of both <form> and <sense>, but <gram> is allowed only as a child of <form>. I would like it added to <sense> as well in keeping with feature request 3266021 and in keeping with section 9.3.2, which implies that you can encode grammatical information either way.

Discussion

1 2 3 .. 5 > >> (Page 1 of 5)
  • Piotr Banski
    Piotr Banski
    2011-07-23

    I'd be much happier with the kind of uniformity whereby <gram> is always a child of <gramGrp>. Same about <gram>'s friends. This is of course not going to be optimal for cases where the Dictionaries chapter is meant to describe (some) *print* dictionaries, so maybe this discussion could be extended (its potential target being the next Council meeting) to make the distinction between the various views more fundamental, and e.g. force <gram> and its specializations to always be put into <gramGrp> in the *lexical* view?

     
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2011-07-24

    I have the same caveat as Piotr on this, namely that I tend to be more and more restrictive on allowed structures for the lexical view. Typically a gram in form sound strange to me since I would recommend to systematically use gramGrp as a container. Just to ask, Kevin, would you have anything against dropping gram from all its possible usages in isolation?

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2011-07-24

    Piotr suggests a rewriting of the dictionaries chapter to more clearly separate the various "views" of a dictionary, analogous to how we have bibl, biblStruct and even biblFull. I like the idea, but obviously this would be a major project that would break backwards-compatibility on most dictionaries.

    Laurent seems to suggest something more modest: no longer allowing gram to be used except within gramGrp. I'm okay with this.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2011-07-24

    Now that I think about it some more, I'm not so sure I like only allowing gram as a child of gramGrp. As a point of comparison, we don't require name to be a child of persName, orgName, etc.; instead, it can be used in place of these elements.

     
  • Piotr Banski
    Piotr Banski
    2011-07-24

    Hi Kevin, I am not sure that the analogy between gramGrp and *Name is valid. gramGrp is not a specialization of <gram>.

     
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2011-07-25

    Indeed. gramGrp is exactly conceived as a container. Whereas name and persName are at the same level of representation (one more specific than the other). My point is that forcing gram in being in gramGrp would strongly improve interoperability. We could keep the other possibility for a while and indicate its deprecation.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2011-07-25

    Okay, I'm convinced.

     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2011-07-25

    • summary: gram in sense --> deprecate use of gram except as a child of gramGrp
     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2011-07-25

    I'm renaming the ticket from "gram in sense" to "deprecate use of gram except as a child of gramGrp"

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2011-11-02

    • milestone: --> AMBER
     
1 2 3 .. 5 > >> (Page 1 of 5)