Print

Print


I fall rather in the middle on this one. I understand exactly what Dan 
means, but I take the point that language is perhaps not the perfect 
analogue. Generically, this is the kind of thing we're talking about:

<teiHeader>
...
	<descriptionOfThing xml:id="ThingID">
		<property>blah</property>
		<property>stuff</property>
	</descriptionOfThing>
...
</teiHeader>

<text>
...
	<div associateWith="ThingID">
		...
	</div>
...
</text>

The pattern is that something is described in the header (maybe by means 
of a feature description, maybe using other tags such as creatorApp, but 
with a unique ID) and then elements elsewhere in the document are 
associated with it by means of an attribute pointing to the ID value. 
The pattern is useful for all sorts of different types of item, from 
linguistic feature structures to creatorApp. I think Dan's actually 
using the term "feature structure" in a general sense, rather than 
referring to fsd and fs elements.

Cheers,
Martin

Lou Burnard wrote:
> Dan O'Donnell wrote:
> 
>> b) For Lou: in addition to what Martin said about the tool att, the idea
>> came up I think in a discussion of how a creation app might be
>> conceptually similar to langusage, which is itself a type of feature
>> structure, I think.
> 
> I beg to differ.
> 
> A language, an application which creates something, a linguistic 
> structure, or indeed a kettle of old socks might all be *described* by 
> means of a feature structure. That is because a feature structure is a 
> generic method of representing interpretations as named feature-value 
> pairs organized in various ways. It does not mean that the things a fs 
> describes are *types* of feature structure.
> 
> 
>  I.e. a place for identifying properties that can be
>> referred to elsewhere by ID:
> 
> This is a very restrictive definition of a feature structure! The TEI 
> feature structure representation *uses* the id/idref mechanism inherited 
> from SGML for economy of representation. It is by no means an essential 
> part of it.
> 
> 
>> In this case, I think the creationapp proposal seems to lie between
>> langusage and revisionDesc in syntax and function.
>>
> 
> I don't know what dimension you are plotting these things along, but I 
> think they have very little to do with each other. One is about the 
> languages used in a text (and note that it is redundant for most 
> documents come P5). The other is about what happened in the process of 
> creating the document. Their syntax is identical -- they both use XML. 
> Their functions are as different as chalk and cheese.
> 
> 
>> -d
>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])
Half-Baked Software, Inc.
([log in to unmask])
[log in to unmask]