On 09/06/11 16:17, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> the TEI Guidelines. If your ODD references the TEI's modules and
> classes, any changes made to these by the TEI would be inherited in your
> customization if you re-process your ODD using Roma. (Right?)
Not quite. You can tie your references to a specific version of the TEI.
In the case of modules, you can also choose whether you intend to
include all components of the module, whatever they might be at some
time in the future, or whether you only want to include some specific
components as they currently are.
> But here's where I see as a potential disadvantage to using the TEI's
> modules and classes. If I want to modify my schema in the future, I
> would revise the ODD file and reprocess it using Roma to create a new
> schema. But if I process it with Roma, I risk picking up changes to the
> TEI Guidelines that I didn't intend to have included. (Right?)
Not if you tied your ODD to a specific version, as mentioned above.
> To get around this and still get the advantages of literate programming,
> you could use the ODD language to express a tag set for your project
> which does not inherit from the TEI's modules and classes.
You could indeed. The wheel is always ripe for reinvention!
> everything is expressed without reference to the TEI, even if you share
> element names and content models for the sake of mutual intelligibility.
You are not contributing to mutual intelligibility though. You are
contributing to mutual confusion, because you are using names which the
TEI has defined to have a particular significance and semantics, with no
guarantee that your schema will actually respect them. Please don't do it!