Hello XML'ers,
A few minor comments with regard to Jean-Marc's recent proposals which, on the whole, I find intriguing:
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Jean-Marc Vanel wrote:
This feature-property-value triology is what I had in mind the first time I read about Delta. A few remarks:
- the feature can be a hierarchy, like:
leaf/lamina/abaxial_surface/vein_islands/indumentum/density
I wouldn't have thought that "density" would be the feature, but rather the property, i.e.:
feature = leaf/lamina/abaxial_surface/vein_islands/indumentum property = density value = (some value)
- we can turn the Flora of Australia GLOSSARY in a XML vocabulary in XML Schema or RDF Schema syntax; each glossary entry should be classified either as a feature, or a property, or a property-value;
Would properties be reified into features (as is done in RDF), or will there be some other way to deal with properties of properties? Intensifiers such as "very", for example.
- the current type of characters of Delta (multistate=enumerate, integer, real numeric, text) will become type information for properties in our new Taxonomic XML Schema; there is a standard for data types in the 2nd part of W3C's XML Schema recommandation; we must avoid to re-invent the wheel;
Note: the XML Schema part 2 of November 1999 is a Working Draft, not even a Proposed Recommendation, let a alone a Recommendation.
- the proposed XDELTA format (http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccslrd/delta/) is too much a direct translation of a Delta file;
Of course, since its intent is to be a direct translation of the DELTA format, this is not exactly a failing of the XDELTA format.
- I propose to have 3 XML Namespaces for our different XML vocabularies: o biological descriptions (generalities) o botany o zoology
I'm sure you don't mean to leave out Mycology, Bryology, etc.
Best wishes,
-Noel