To back up in the conversation a bit ...
On 1/25/13 11:51 AM, John P. McCaskey wrote:
> On 1/25/2013 11:07 AM, Syd Bauman wrote:
>>> What's the best way for a document to announce to its consumers what the @type attribute in <idno> means?
>> My instinct is that, like any other controlled vocabulary on the @type of any other element, the way to define what it means is in the ODD. Something like:
> Really? I presume that a consumer of a TEI document that uses a stock
> schema should be able to process the document without access to the ODD.
... I wonder whether Syd and John are actually talking about different
things. When Syd suggests defining values of @type "in the ODD", I
think he is assuming that the values are not just in the prose of the
ODD customization but also in the schemas automatically derived from
that ODD document. That is, the various schemas would define a closed
list of values so that a validator could check for them. And when John
says he think you should be able to process "without access to the ODD",
he might be speaking only of the ODD and not any schemas derived from it.
However, John continues ...
> Moreover, we often comment on how positively *un-*controlled idno/@type
> vocabulary is. (Should it even be data.enumerated?) Should there really
> be no structured way for a document to announce what the abbreviations
> used in idno/@type mean?
... and I agree that my interpretation of Syd's proposal doesn't help us
deal with an uncontrolled vocabulary.