#384 free-standing attributes -> class

AMBER
open
None
1(low)
2014-05-28
2012-09-15
Sebastian Rahtz
No

Now that local modification of class attribute is supported at the source level, we need to make a new catalogue of all attributes which have the same name as ones in classes, and which can therefore be considered as amenable to being expressed as a local modification. There are, for example, apparently 69 attributes called 'type' - most of these can very likely be turned into membership of att.typed.

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2012-10-31

    I just note that @type is really the only significant case of this kind

     
  • well... there are 58 occurrences of attribute names used more than once on elements, and about 20 of those also appear in classes. http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/atts.html contains the damning evidence. @scheme, @target, @value, @name, @key seem ripe for examination.

    so depends on what the definitiin of significant is :-}

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2013-01-08

    • milestone: --> AMBER
    • assigned_to: nobody --> rahtz
     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2013-01-08

    Assigning to rahtz to bring a proposal to Council of what attributes should change. Setting as AMBER since this will need discussion. The general idea is, of course, a good one and why we introduced this facility.

     
  • the requested catalogue is at http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/duplatts.html, showing 49 cases to consider. I think they are all open to discussion. @type is the big one, but plenty of others are in double figures.

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2013-01-08

    Gawd. I see both @target and @typed are in more than one attribute class. Are we thinking that an attribute class can be a local modification of another attribute class?

     
  • "Are we thinking that an attribute class can be a local modification of
    another attribute class?" - thats getting tricky. Its a possibility, but first
    we need to decide if they _are_ in fact the same concept. Getting to grips with
    all the uses of @type is a serious undertaking :-{

    something like @hand or @wit is easier to sort out

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2013-11-10

    As I suggested above, @type is probably the only really significant problem area. Most of the others are easily resolved. When resolving them though, I am worrying that we will often be adding irrelevant attributes just for the sake of tidiness. In at least some cases where @x is defined locally rather than inherited from att.whatever, it's because att.whatever also supplies attributes @y and @z which are not relevant. Do we really want to make loads of subclasses?

     
  • You can have a local modification to remove unwanted attributes, but when I proposed and did this in 2012, I got burnt at the stake for heresy by some people. I am not we ever resolved it after an argument in Ann Arbor.

     
  • can you remove forest and forestGrp from list? I have moved them to att.typed willy-nilly.

     
    • assigned_to: Sebastian Rahtz --> Rebecca Welzenbach
    • Priority: 5 --> 1(low)
     
  • Kevin Hawkins
    Kevin Hawkins
    2013-11-11

    Per Council discussion in Oxford, we decided that once this is implemented, we need to add a note to att.typed reminding people that this is meant to describe the type of element, not type of scope, function etc.

     
    Last edit: Kevin Hawkins 2013-11-11
    • Piotr Banski
      Piotr Banski
      2013-11-11

      Good luck enforcing that... ;-)

       
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2014-05-28

    Reassigning to PFS to follow up

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2014-05-28

    • assigned_to: Rebecca Welzenbach --> Paul Schaffner