SWML

[Steve Slevinski]

Hi Jonathan,

The gloss should be a tag and not an attribute.  It looks like your 
example comes from the SignPuddle 1.0 export, which does not follow the 
DTD.  That's a defect.
http://www.signbank.org/signpuddle/swml/swml-s.dtd

Jonathan wrote:
> I image that the "gloss" tag was meant so that there could be several 
> glosses per sign. Is this right? If it is so then the "symbol" tags 
> should be withing the "gloss" tag or else we won't know which "symbol" 
> tag belongs to which "gloss" tag.  It isn't enough that the "gloss" 
> tag come first.

Each sign can have multiple glosses and multiple symbols.  The glosses 
and symbols are not directly related.  The symbols make up the sign.  
And the gloss describes the sign in English words. 

For example, the sign for the ASL number one has a single symbol, but 
multiple glosses.
<sign>
  <gloss>one</gloss>
  <gloss>1</gloss>
  <gloss>uno</gloss>
  <symbol x="1" y="1">01-01-001-01-01-01</symbol>
</sign>


> My other comment about SBML which I realized was made especially for 
> SignBank which I am sure works just fine.  But SBML uses comma 
> separated values.  Which are fine, I use them all them time.  But I 
> feel that they are out of context in an XML file.  As is I can load 
> the SBML into objects or a dataset but I still have to parse the build 
> and the sequence to get to the information.  But if each comma 
> separated value has it's own tag, it will load just as fast into an 
> object or dataset and I don't have to do any parsing to get at the 
> information.  So for a SignWriting exchange format, I strongly suggest 
> staying away from comma delimited strings.
>
Hmm.  I can understand your feeling.  I'm not sure which style I'm going 
to use for STML.  I should probably use the verbose tag style, but I've 
never had a case where I was glad I chose the verbose style over the 
build format for SWML-S. 

Regards,
-Steve


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20070522/e2386c70/attachment.htm>