On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:50:12AM +0100, Pete Johnston wrote:
> > One could then use these terms to describe the notion of
> > "structured value", perhaps in something like the following:
> >
> > Values qualified by "syntax encoding schemes" are
> > "value strings" that contain machine-parsable component
> > parts.
>
> First, leaving aside the "structured value string" issue for a second,
> the DCAM says that "syntax encoding schemes" are associated with "value
> strings" not with "values". i.e. for a single value, a statement might
> provide _multiple_ value strings each with a _different_ syntax encoding
> scheme. e.g.
...
> Second, we need to be careful not to equate the use of "structured value
> strings" and the use of syntax encoding schemes. The use of a syntax
> encoding scheme does _not_ necessarily mean that the value string has
> machine parsable component parts.
How about:
Value strings qualified by syntax encoding schemes may
contain machine-parsable component parts...
On the other hand, the syntax encoding schemes need not
necessarily enter into the explanation here at all.
> Basically, for syntax encoding schemes generally, it's about mapping
> between the lexical space and the value space and that doesn't
> necessarily mean parsing components.
Right...
> I don't think we need to do that. I think this can probably be sorted
> out within the DCSV (etc) specs.
So much the better...! We'll talk about the "structured
value string" issue in Madrid?
Tom
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
SUB - Goettingen State +49-551-39-3883
and University Library +49-30-8109-9027
Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen
|