Paul,
To be honest I haven't made any mods to my work there since January.
I've been watching developments here in CaveXML and looking for good
ideas to incorporate.
>I notice you didn't go for any attributes (type or title) on Comments,
nor did you stear away from using the loaded term "comment".
I thought it was a little premature in January to start adding attibutes
to elements like Comment. We really haven't made a very sophisticated
effort to model data yet and without that kind of an approach it's hard
to build buy-in to any given proposal. I do however intend to drop the
<Comment> tag for reasons discussed previously. One of the other
suggested tags will likely take its place.
>Why not just put person inside instrument?
Richard gave one good reason for this. But putting person inside
instrument doesn't preclude you from changing the person attribute for a
given survey shot. It all just comes down to how you want to model
things in XML. Do I even want to associate a person with an instrument?
Maybe, but it's a little early to know at this point. Too much fenagling
still underway in the discussion group.
I'd like to see us address a few more of the tasks on Andreas' Todo
list. I personally think he was on the right tack with the Entity
definition approach.
DSK
-- Devin Kouts Caver Systems Engineer www.psc-cavers.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:00 CEST