>Attached are two documents that contain my first cut at defining a
>proposed CaveXML format. I consider semanics.html to be the more
>important of the two.
>Comments are welcome.
You asked for it! I'll try to be gentle.
On a quick look:
CaveXML.DTD:
- The AzUnit and IncUnit need more units. AzUnit could be a bearing, could be in grads, mills, or DMS. IncUnit could be
DMS, grads, or mills... or could have a length (for u/w surveys or level lines).
- There are lots of places you have "ANY" for the element. Do you really want an uncontrolled extension of these
elements? Is there intentionally no overall format to the document? This makes is difficult to enter data in an XML editor - no
overall structure.
- I don't think you can use ID as an attribute and as a type (however, neither DTDExplorer or Xeena complained).
- You have places where there are multiple enumerations using (true|false). This is not compatible with the SGML spec. I
encountered this issue on my Exclusion element, too. Mainly a design decision.
- Interesting element Provenence.
Semantics.html
- The text on cross sections is a little confusing; examples might help.
- If a shot has more than one azimuth, it says the values will be averaged. Will this be limited to azimuths of the same
reversed and inverted values or all azimuths?
Overall, I think the lack of structure to the DTD makes it difficult to follow. A full example of the resulting XML might help. It
might be helpful to have snips of the DTD in the Semantics document so they are easier to relate. I also highly recommend
getting a validating XML editor to see how the data works. Using one resulted in changes in the version I was working.
(0.02 USD)
- Richard Knapp
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:01 CEST