dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Negative values - scoped values
- From: "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
- To: "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>,"Esrig, Bruce \(Bruce\)" <esrig@lucent.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:14:51 -0700
Ultimately, my question is not whether some values have
relationships to other values but whether those relationships are best expressed
in each document or in a configuration file (schema?) where they can be
centrally managed.
The scoped values also allow
different kinds of classification: effectively, if one set of values has an
"is-a" or "part-of" relationship to another set, it makes sense to express
them as a single value, both semantically and for processing reasons.
For example, products have editions - but
if you set product="A B C" and edition="2" then it's unclear which product the
edition applies to; whereas if we set product="A B/2 C" it becomes much
clearer.
Michael Priestley
IBM
DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT
Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Esrig, Bruce (Bruce)"
<esrig@lucent.com>
04/18/2006 10:57 AM
|
To
| Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Chris Wong
<cwong@idiominc.com>
|
cc
| dita@lists.oasis-open.org, Paul Prescod
<paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
|
Subject
| RE: [dita] Negative
values - scoped values |
|
As a taxonomy enthusiast, I like scoped values. From a
logical point of view, scoped values are not necessary if you are only
manipulating one value, because you can specify all its qualities in different
attributes.
If the situation can only be described using two values both
of which are scoped, then you need scoped values to avoid unintended
combinations.
Without scoped values, you can describe items using multiple
attributes as in this example:
establishment-type="bar hotel"
establishment-name="NewYorker Plaza"
would have four intepretations
bar/NewYorker
bar/Plaza
hotel/NewYorker
hotel/Plaza
If you meant to say
establishment="bar/NewYorker
hotel/Plaza"
then you need scoped values.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From:
Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April
18, 2006 10:49 AM
To: Chris Wong
Cc:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org; Paul Prescod
Subject: RE: [dita] Negative
values
There was a comment
submitted to the TC asking for wildcard filtering - I was reluctant to allow
full wildcard filtering because of its reliance on informal semantics (eg win*
won't match desktopwin, and *win wouldn't match windows but would match
notwin).
I
thought allowing scoped values - with separate components that have a bit more
formal identity - would increase flexibility without sacrificing formality (ie
we're still dealing with whole values, even if they're part of a
compound).
There was some discussion of this on the dita-users list prior to
the comment submission, but I have to admit I don't think we discussed it on
the TC list.
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema
PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Chris Wong"
<cwong@idiominc.com>
04/18/2006 10:42 AM
|
To
| Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Paul Prescod"
<paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
|
cc
| <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [dita] Negative
values |
|
I think he
means "scoped values". From your spec:
audience="programmer/database programmer/Java programmer/Web"
I'm
surprised to see this in the spec too, since I was not aware that there is
significant demand for this. Maybe I missed the discussion.
Chris
From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:24
AM
To: Paul Prescod
Cc:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] Negative
values
What
scope attribute?
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification
Schema PDT
Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Paul Prescod"
<paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
04/18/2006 10:03 AM
|
To
| <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [dita] Negative
values |
|
This document describes
negative
values:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/17329/IssueNumber20.ht
ml
It
isn't explicit about the semantics of them. For example, it implies
that
negative and positive values can be combined in a single
attribute
(otherwise why say that the NOT operator only applies to a
single
value). But I would have thought that a negation of value A
implies
value B by definition. Therefore explicitly stating value B
is
redundant.
audience="NOT paul"
Means everybody but paul.
Therefore saying "everybody but paul plus
janice" is redundant. In
programming language terms:
If Audience!=paul OR
audience=janice
Although I am a fan of the goals of this feature, I am
not convinced
that we can work out the details in the time we have. Plus I
think that
it is a bit of scope creep beyond what the TC agreed to. The
same goes
for the scope attribute.
Paul Prescod
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]