Kevin wrote:
>I've taken the route of marking up a textual description, using a minimum of
>tags. It seems to me that a description comprises a series of features with
>values. I've used mixed markup because I wanted to have the mimimum
>tagging and make maximum use of the text.
Although XML allows mixed content such as Kevin's:
<Feature><Name>spines</Name>, not developing at each node,
<Feature Name="Length" MinValue="0">to c.
<MaxValue>1</MaxValue><Units>cm</Units> long</Feature>
</Feature>
and such a document can be validated against a schema, apart from being
untidy and inelegant, mixed content can pose certain problems when
attempted to be loaded into a relational database; this is probably not
going to impress people like Gregor.
Can we agree that although mixed content XML is quite allowable, we are
going to try and avoid it in the SDD context?
jim
~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
>The other qualifiers (misinterps etc) aren't in there yet, but will come.
>We'll have to be much more sophisticated that in my example, of course.
>
>Now how about "definately known to be unknown"
Very droll... However, Greg and I have discussed this in depth over a
bottle of red and have come to the firm conclusion that without the
attribute of "often misinterpreted as definitely known to be unknown", and
the corresponding "rarely misinterpreted as definitely known to be
unknown", accurate representation of author intent in biological
descriptions will never be possible...
So get to it - we expect to see this in the next software release, real
soon now...
jim
~ Jim Croft ~ jrc(a)anbg.gov.au ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~
