Jim wrote:

Anyway, it looks as though we are settling on an architecture allows both discursive descriptions accommodated by 'narrative' elements, and for the compulsive obsessives, a nested set of 'features' that can have 'feature_values', 'qualifers' and associated 'narrative'... Right?

And that the competing architecture of a list of 'feature_values' that

can

be present, absent, unknown, doubtful, present by misinterpretation,

absent

by misinterpretation, imaginary, etc. has been given the flick?

There are two things mixed in here, surely.

1. Yes, I think an architecture that allows both discursive (read "natural language" if you will) and coded (DELTA-like) descriptions is feasible. The principal difference between discursive and coded forms is that one uses idrefs and the other doesn't - so as Bob notes, once the XMLHeads work out how to use idrefs here we will hopefully be able to accommodate the coded form.

2. In either case, there is still a need for a limited set of qualifiers for feature values (ie present, uncertain, present by misinterpretation etc). This will surely simply be another layer of complexity that will be added to the core once it's robust.

This is partially implemented already (using two rather curious qualifiers): - <FEATURE name="color"> <FEATURE_VALUE QUALIFIER="highly">varies between colonies</FEATURE_VALUE> <FEATURE_VALUE QUALIFIER="maybe">concolorous yellow-brown</FEATURE_VALUE> <FEATURE_VALUE>bicolored with darker head</FEATURE_VALUE> <FEATURE_VALUE>concolorous brown</FEATURE_VALUE> </FEATURE>

Presumably, Bob's comments:

As we represent it, TDD0.3 has only a few classes of objects: FEATURE a complex type with a name attribute and containing a string-based

FEATURE_VALUE,

NARRATIVEs and, recursively, other FEATUREs. DESCRIPTION a container of FEATUREs and NARRATIVES. NARRATIVE a string-based type suitable for extension to more complex

markup.

Our goal was the production and application of a Schema for TDD0.3, and

consequently in the

sample applications we have forced some things into the model which are

likely, ultimately,

to have their own Schema. The notable examples are publishing artifacts

such as markup for

literature references, and some common scientific vocabulary deserving its

own tagging standards.

means that many things will eventually be moved out of the rather featureless FEATURE and DESCRIPTION objects into more purpose-built structures.

Cheers - k