#441 fDecl doesn't allow att.datcat yet

GREEN
open-accepted
Piotr Banski
5(default)
2013-10-10
2012-09-20
Menzo Windhouwer
No

TEI P5 2.1.0 says at the end of section 18.3

"Whether at the level of feature-system declarations, feature- and feature-value libraries, or individual features, it is possible to align both feature names and their values with standardized external data category repositories such as ISOcat."

However, a feature declaration can not be associated with an ISOcat data category using @dcr:datcat yet, i.e., <fDecl> [1] doesn't yet include the att.datcat [2] attribute set which <f> [3] already does.

If <fDecl> would allow @dcr:datcat it becomes possible to declare all relationships with ISOcat data categories in a feature system declaration instead of doing so highly redundant in each feature instantiation.

[1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-fDecl.html
[2] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.datcat.html
[3] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-f.html

Related

Bugs: #441

Discussion

<< < 1 2 3 4 > >> (Page 2 of 4)
  • Piotr Banski
    Piotr Banski
    2012-10-25

    I take the point about <equiv>. On the other hand, I also see an issue concerning the variable interpretation of the dcr: attributes, where, I believe -- and I think this belief is shared by some members the Council, after some exchanges on the topic in the past and now -- there should be one simple interpretation ("*I* am aligned with this-and-that").

    What we have here is, I daresay, an obvious case where we should *not* feel ready to commit ourselves to one view -- there's still a few paths left open. I would therefore like to follow a suggestion that I have got, to withdraw Lou's modification before the release, and bring it back after the release, while leaving this ticket open.

     
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2013-08-12

    Where do we stand with this? I think we need to alter slight the policy "I am this" when it applies to element declaring the semantics of others (equiv and fDecl are two similar cases). For tsuch elements, the dcr: attributes would mean: "what I declare here is equivalent to this entry in the DCR"

     
    • Piotr Banski
      Piotr Banski
      2013-08-12

      That would mean semantics conditioned upon semantics, a pretty nasty dependency.

      How about targetting this squarely and setting up something analogous to @targetLang, with the precise semantics mentioned above?

       
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2013-08-12

    Can you elaborate on that? You mean having an additional dcr: attribute?

     
    • Piotr Banski
      Piotr Banski
      2013-08-12

      After having pondered on this for a while, I think now that it might be good to make ISO FSD (ISO 24610-2:2011) aware of other ISO standards, as is, well, standard.

      This time, it would be nice if ISO FSD was made aware of the existence of ISO DCR and allowed for what we've talked about in this ticket. It seems to me that this is the direction where the effort should be going, otherwise the TEI is pressed into patching what other bodies should have fixed by now.

       
  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2013-08-12

    Well in this case, ISO FSD will just take up what the TEI suggests, because a) this is where most appropriate experts are and b) we should normally expect more reactivity on the side of the TEI. So for me the TEI is the place to experiment/implement. We should thus not procrastinate this too long...

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2013-08-12

    I agree that FSD is in serious need of an update. It has not changed
    substantially for many many years. I'm just not sure who the "other
    bodies" are who might do this -- the workgroup in TC37 has not so far as
    I know done much lately. It's a joint ISO/TEI workgroup, but it needs
    revitalising from both sides.

    On 12/08/13 10:56, Piotr Banski wrote:

    After having pondered on this for a while, I think now that it might
    be good to make ISO FSD (ISO 24610-2:2011) aware of other ISO
    standards, as is, well, standard.

    This time, it would be nice if ISO FSD was made aware of the existence
    of ISO DCR and allowed for what we've talked about in this ticket. It
    seems to me that this is the direction where the effort should be
    going, otherwise the TEI is pressed into patching what other bodies
    should have fixed by now.


    *[bugs:#441] http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/bugs/441/ fDecl doesn't
    allow att.datcat yet *

    Status: open-accepted
    Labels: TEI: Definition of Elements/Attributes/Classes
    Created: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:04 AM UTC by Menzo Windhouwer
    Last Updated: Mon Aug 12, 2013 08:23 AM UTC
    Owner: Piotr Banski

    TEI P5 2.1.0 says at the end of section 18.3

    "Whether at the level of feature-system declarations, feature- and
    feature-value libraries, or individual features, it is possible to
    align both feature names and their values with standardized external
    data category repositories such as ISOcat."

    However, a feature declaration can not be associated with an ISOcat
    data category using @dcr:datcat yet, i.e., <fDecl> [1] doesn't yet
    include the att.datcat [2] attribute set which <f> [3] already does.

    If <fDecl> would allow @dcr:datcat it becomes possible to declare all
    relationships with ISOcat data categories in a feature system
    declaration instead of doing so highly redundant in each feature
    instantiation.

    [1] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-fDecl.html
    [2]
    http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.datcat.html
    [3] http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-f.html


    Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
    https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/bugs/441/

    To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
    https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/

     

    Related

    Bugs: #441

  • Laurent Romary
    Laurent Romary
    2013-08-12

    So, back to the actual issue. How to mark on fDecl the equivalence to an ISOCat entry. Piotr rejects the existing dcr: attributes since he says it is not the appropriate semantics. Is there a consensus on this? If yes, we need an extra mechanism. Another attribute? also in the dcr: namespace?

     
    • Piotr Banski
      Piotr Banski
      2013-08-12

      BTW, it's not that I had the whim to reject the use of the existing dcr: attributes: I have merely pointed at considerations and decisions made in an analogous case.

      To push the point further: there is nothing illogical in placing @dcr:datcat on an fsDecl or fDecl, to make sure that they are interpretable as data containers for declarations of feature structures or of features. That is in full accordance with DCR principles, and, in fact, this point alone should suffice to cut the discussion on the initial suggestion, and redirect it towards looking for a place and a method to define something like @targetDatcat.

       
  • Piotr Banski
    Piotr Banski
    2013-08-12

    Apart from the status of ISO/TEI FSD, one more issue that may need to be considered is that it may be expected that it's the "new" piece of the standards puzzle that should be responsible for defining bindings for the other standards, rather than forcing them to update.

    ISO DCR has done a good job by defining and namespacing its two attributes that can now be plugged into other descriptions. Possibly, what Laurent has mentioned above may be a good further step: to expect ISO DCR to update and extend its set of {@datcat, @valueDatcat} with two more attributes that can be used in schemas, notably in ISO FSD: {@targetDatcat, @targetValueDatcat}.

     
    Last edit: Piotr Banski 2013-08-12
<< < 1 2 3 4 > >> (Page 2 of 4)