core and modules

[michmech]

So, I have converted my latest proposal to DocBook. Here's what I did in detail:

The core specification is in /dmlex-v1.0/specification/core/specification.xml and then there are separate XML files for each object defined by the core specification.

The remaining modules are all under /dmlex-v1.0/specification/modules. Each module has its own folder there, and their structure follows that of core: the module specification can be found in a file called specification.xml and then there are separate files for each "thing" (object, relation, ...) defined (or extended) by the module.

I did not create separate files for each property of each object, for two interrelated reasons.

Each module (including the core) defines zero or more of these kinds of things:

• Object types. Objects can have:

  • Properties. Properties are atomic values (typically strings). Properties can be optional or required. Properties always have a maximum arity of one: an object cannot have more than one property of the same name.
  • Children and parents. These are references to other objects. The arity or children (zero or more, one or more etc.) is defined in each type. Each object can have up to one parent.

• Relation types. Relations are like objects, but instead of children and parents they have participants.

• Marker types. A "marker" is something which annotates a substring inside some property of some object: like inline elements in XML, but more abstract.

This is my proposed ontology of things thay exist in the DMLex universe. The "things that exist" are abstract and implementation-independent. They would be implemented as elements and attributes in XML, as table and columns in SQL, and so on.

The core defines a basic inventory of object types. Each module typically adds a few more object types (as well as relation types and marker types). A module can also extend an object type from the core or from another module.

I hope that this makes sense and that we can build on this.

[DavidFatDavidF]

The build action added by @mjakubicek failed.. I am not sure if the problem is in the PR or the build script and don't have time to investigate before 29th September. @michmech and @mjakubicek please investigate.. @mjakubicek please finish the merge in case the problem is with the script.. I have reviewed the PR materially and promised to merge.. this just got stuck on the build check..

[DavidFatDavidF]

@michmech as agreed in the meeting earlier today

1. change the wd date entity and commit the latest html
2. I will then merge disregarding @mjakubicek 's script

[michmech]

1. change the wd date entity and commit the latest html

Done.