Re: Practical question: elements or attributes?

Guys,
For these multi-attribute data categories some other alternatives to new 
elements are:

1) for data categories likely to apply largely to the whole document, 
e.g. the process flow definitions, it may be possible to include a 
dedicated element in the global ITS rules part of the document header, 
with a rule binding it to the relevant document elements, and then a 
simpler local attribute indicating exceptions where the rule bound 
element does not apply

2) record the composite data categories in an external data structure, 
e.g. as a CMS database attribute associated with the document. This 
would be relevant for QA or other provenance data which may need to be 
linked to the target document after it is published, e.g. for selecting 
parallel text for MT training, but without incurring the overhead of 
being stored in the document. The document itself would just need an 
attribute providing an index to thei data structure, e.g. a DB key or, 
for linked data, a URL

3) a variation of 2, where we want to further minimise the impact of the 
binding to external data categories on the published document, is for 
the external data to retain a link to the document (rather than the 
other way around as in 2). This external index could be to existing 
fragment identifiers in the document (perhaps addressed via the id value 
requirement) or using some fragment URL scheme, e.g. the NIF URL 
recipies at http://nlp2rdf.org/nif-1-0

It seems that different schemes may be appropriate to different data 
categories, or may even be more attractive in different business 
settings for the same data category. My feeling is we need further input 
from the downstream (i.e. after translation) CMS side of things to help 
guide this.

cheers,
Dave


On 17/04/2012 10:31, Arle Lommel wrote:
> Thanks Felix,
>
> That's basically what I meant by a "bundle of attributes", but you are 
> right that it doesn't look nice.
>
> I guess this question doesn't need to be resolved immediately, but for 
> the sake of consistency, I will take the "ugly" approach in the 
> examples I draft (unless they are already done the other way) and we 
> can discuss in Dublin. I will also use the "its-" prefix as you show 
> below.
>
> Best,
>
> Arle
>
> Sic scripsit Felix Sasaki in Apr 17, 2012 ad 11:25 :
>
>> Hi Arle all (still on vacation, just lurking),
>>
>> it doesn't look nice, but you can mimic elements with attributes. 
>> E.g., instead of
>>
>> <myElem someAttr="">...</myElem>
>> have in HTML5
>> <span its-myElem its-someAttr="">
>>
>> Felix
>