Re: schematron and conformance

Hi Syd,

But is this a valid argument? You're presenting a rogue constraint as 
opposed to one blessed by the Technical Council by inclusion in the TEI 
source. Rogues can do krazy fings, I mean, just look at me...

Best,

   P.

On 26/03/17 21:22, Syd Bauman wrote:
> Overall true, I think. But of course you can easily tie yourself in
> knots with discrepancies between the set of documents permitted by
> the RELAX NG portion of your ODD and the Schematron portion thereof.
>
>     <sch:report test="/tei:TEI/tei:teiHeader">Here at the weBbad
>         project, we do not believe in metadata, and thus
>         do not allow use of the <gi>teiHeader</gi>
>         element.</sch:report>
>
> But keep in mind that some Schematron constraints are explicitly
> role="nonfatal". These should not, IMHO, be violations of TEI
> conformance, whether or not the others are.
>
>> When I define my own Schematron constraints and add them into an
>> ODD, their effect is always to reduce the set of documents which
>> will be considered valid, by comparison with the set that might be
>> considered valid by TEI All, or by a version of my ODD without
>> those constraints. Hence I infer that schematron constraints are
>> always going to be restrictions rather than extensions of an
>> existing schema, which means (I think) that adding them has no
>> effect on the TEI Conformance of my ODD or the documents it
>> validates. Good.
>>
>> But what about the constraints which the TEI itself defines ? If a
>> document is valid against TEI All but fails some TEI-defined
>> schematron constraint is it no longer TEI conformant? The current
>> definition (in chap 23 of the Glines) says nothing on the topic.
>> You could argue that the object of most (or all?) TEI-defined
>> schematron constraints is to test some semantic constraint
>> otherwise expressed only loosely in the prose, and conformance with
>> the TEI semantic model is also a requirement for conformance, so a
>> document which fails the schematron test is ipso facto non
>> conformant. You could argue that validation with schematron is an
>> optional additional extra which shouldn't be required of all TEI
>> users, since not all validating software supports it.
>>
>> Just wondering if there are any strong views out there ...
>