[osis-core] notesPartsOSIS?

[Todd Tillinghast]

I hadn't seen this message when I just sent the last one out.  I like
indentation better myself.

Todd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:owner-osis-
> core@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Todd Tillinghast
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:20 PM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: RE: [osis-core] notesPartsOSIS?
> 
> If we think that the enumerated list for types for <notePart> and
<note>
> are the same set then we should leave it alone.  In my TEV document I
> used several x- types for <notePart> that may not be what we intend
for
> <note>.
> 
> Here is the list of types I am using exclusively for <notePart> and
not
> for <note>:
> x-link
> x-reading
> x-content
> x-refText
> 
> This is just a statement of what I did when encoding and that I did
find
> a difference between the type of <note> and <notePart>.  But I am NOT
> attached to there being different types for <note> and <notePart>.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Todd
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> [mailto:owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Patrick
> Durusau
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 5:20 AM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: [osis-core] notesPartsOSIS?
> 
> Todd,
> 
> 
> >9) Fixed the typo in noteTypePart to be the union of notePartsOSIS
and
> >attribute extension rather than notesOSIS
> >
> 
> When I search for notePartsOSIS, it should occur in the union
statement
> and somewhere else? In other words, the union call is a joining of two
> lists already defined elsewhere. At least in OSISCore_0107.xsd, there
is
> 
> no other notePartsOSIS. (Besides, I think the union with notesOSIS is
> correct anyway. ;-)
> 
> Patrick
> 
> --
> Patrick Durusau
> Director of Research and Development
> Society of Biblical Literature
> pdurusau@emory.edu
> 
> 
>