[xtm-wg] Re: XTM 1.0 Spec -- Example inconsistencies

[rho@bigpond.net.au]

--- In xtm-wg@egroups.com, "Richard Marciano" <marciano@s...> wrote:
> 
> SOME MINOR INCONSISTENCIES IN THE EXAMPLES:
> 
> http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/xtm1-20001204.html.
> 
>         There seems to be an inconsistency in some of the examples.  
> For example, "4.7.1 <baseName> Element" defines the content model:
>         <!ELEMENT baseName (scope?,baseNameString,variant*)>
> 
> yet, examples such as in section 4.3.1, show multiple <scope> 
> subelements as in:
>         <baseName>
>           <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#plays"/></scope>
>           <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#shortname"/></scope>
>           <baseNameString>Hamlet</baseNameString>
>         </baseName>
> 
> In section 4.3.1, the content model:
>   <!ELEMENT scope ( topicRef  | resourceRef | subjectIndicatorRef
)+>
> 
> suggests one <scope> element only followed by multiple <topicRef...>
> subelements.
> 
> *************
> ** ALSO
> *************
>   <!ELEMENT variantName  ( resourceRef | resourceData ) >
> 
> suggests up to one resourceRef subelement, yet the example in
section
> "4.7.3 <variant> Element", has sections such as:
> 
>         <variantName>
>           <resourceRef xlink:href="http:..."/>
>           <resourceRef xlink:href="http:..."/>
>         </variantName>
> 
> Is the example out of synch, or is it the content model?

I probably have missed the answer to this (?).

There is also some discrepancy between

  <!ELEMENT variant  ( parameters, ( variantName | variant )+ ) >

and

  <!ELEMENT variant  ( parameters, variantName, variant* ) >

in

  http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#elt-variant

My (educated) guess is that the latter is obsolete.

\rho

PS: Is it possible to read 'threads' with egroups? Catching up
    is quite some challenge otherwise....


To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com