>Wendell Piez writes:
>If DTDs (and other validation regimens) were
>broken down and cast to into phases representing different stages of a
>project, the whole technology might be more accessible. Something like:
>1. Project scoping. Development of skeleton headers.
>2. Data capture. Structural markup. Revise headers to document tagging
>practices. Validation, testing, QA.
>3. Enriching the markup. (Revise headers documenting tagging practices.)
>Validation, testing, QA.
>4. (could be concurrent) development/application of stylesheets, analytic
>toolkit, etc. etc. Testing, QA.
We break the MEP DTD down into 3 levels. Level 1 handles basic data capture
and structural markup. Level 2 adds the linking tags needed for footnotes
and document-to-document referencing. Level 3 gives the user the full DTD
necessary for enrichment. Each DTD is available as a flat file.
Most documentary editors are accustomed to "staging" their work and seem to
feel comfortable with this arrangement.
As a rule we recommend using "toy" headers and replacing them with full
headers generated from a project's database control file. We have a program
that works with Access databases to generate the full headers and another
program to replace the toy headers with the full headers.
Best to all... David
David R. Chesnutt
Papers of Henry Laurens/
Model Editions Partnership
Department of History
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Email: [log in to unmask]