[osis-core] New milestone use of elements

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Patrick,
	:)  OK, one more time....  I'M NOT suggesting we actually can get the 
schema rules correct about milestones...

	I'm only _trivially_ suggesting that we don't hand code all elements 
with a 'mID', but instead specify something less specific but more 
exempliary on each element.

Schema syntax follows:

// stole regex from osisWorkType
<xs:simpleType name="mIDType">
   <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
     <xs:pattern value="((\p{L}|\p{N}|_)+)((\.(\p{L}|\p{N}|_)+)*)?"/>
   </xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>


// all documentation about Milestonable behaviour here
<xs:attributeGroup name="milestoneable">
   <xs:attribute name="mID" type="mIDType" use="optional"/>
</xs:attributeGroup>


// example element
<xs:element name="verse">
   <xs:complexType mixed="true">
...
     <xs:attributeGroup ref="milestoneable"/>
   </xs:complexType>
</xs:element>

__________________________________________

OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE, I WOULD RATHER MILESTONEABLE NOT BE LIMITED TO AN 
ATTRIBUTEGROUP, SO SOMETHING _LIKE_:


// all documentation about Milestoneable behaviour here
<xs:complexType name="milestoneable">
   <xs:attribute name="mID" type="mIDType" use="optional"/>
</xs:complexType>


// example element
<xs:element name="verse">
   <xs:complexType mixed="true">
     <xs:complexContent>
       <xs:extension base="milestoneable"/>
...
     </xs:complexContent>
   </xs:complexType>
</xs:element>


This is my feable 1 hour old knowledge of XML Schema, so please be kind.
Remember, this was meant to be a nit-pickey comment and has evolved into 
me learning Schema syntax.  I realize just adding 'mID' to every element 
accomplishes the same thing, but it doesn't CONCEPTUALLY isolate this 
behaviour to some Schema THING like either of the above alternatives do.

	-Troy.





Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Troy,
> 
> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> 
>> Patrick,
>>     It was simpler than what you thought, I think....
>>
>> You said that you had "...add[ed] the 'mID' attribute to all the 
>> elements that can be listed in the milestoneSE type attribute." (see 
>> below for quote :) )
>>
>>     I was just suggesting that INSTEAD of adding 'mID' to all elements 
>> that should have it, we normalize this 'mID' attribute out into some 
>> schema 'form', I guess like whatever milestoneSE was.  And then let 
>> each element 'get' this 'thing'...
> 
> 
> One possible method would be for me to replace the "mID" on all those 
> elements with a call to an attribute by reference, which would have the 
> documentation you are seeking.
> 
> Not sure it is possible to create a class of element that requires two 
> empty elements and the "mID" and then to extend it with each of the 
> other elements. Will have to think about that one.
> 
> Patrick
> 
>>
>> I guess I should learn schema syntax and state my suggestion 
>> appropriately.
>>
>> trying one more attempt at non-schema syntax:
>>
>> class Milestoneable {
>>     // all docs here, including the fact that there must
>>     // be exactly 2 elements containing this mID value and
>>     // that this semantic logically has identical OSIS meaning
>>     // as the XML container semantic.
>>
>>     allow attribute 'mID';
>>
>> };
>>
>> class <q> extends Milestoneable {...};
>> class <verse> extends Milestoneable {...};
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>
>>> Troy,
>>>
>>> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What I did was to add the mID attribute to all the elements that 
>>>>> can be listed in the milestoneSE type attribute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know this is silly nit-picking... but...
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to have a schema 'form' (speaking Platonic, for lack 
>>>> of my schema knowledge) that declares the attribute mID as valid.  
>>>> We could call the form, 'milestoneable' or something-or-other, then 
>>>> the elements that are milestoneable could 'be of|inherit|get' this 
>>>> form.  This way we could have all the docs regarding the 
>>>> 'milestoneable' semantic at this point, including all the OSIS rules 
>>>> regarding such.  I realize they will just be pros, but at least they 
>>>> will be where someone would expect to find them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean by "declares the attribute mID as valid." What 
>>> I think you want is to have the semantic of having an attribute value 
>>> for that attribute defined. In other words, if I am using this as a 
>>> container, then no mID attribute value should be declared. If used as 
>>> a milestone, then declare the mID attribute.
>>>
>>> BTW, I think this container semantic with mID goes beyond most of the 
>>> other milestone work I have seen. Maybe we should work up an article 
>>> for xml.com or somewhere about it.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>     -Troy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> osis-core mailing list
>>>> osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>>>> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osis-core mailing list
>> osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core
>>
>