So, do DTD files get placed under data or in a completely separate
location, for installation purposes? (i.e. ../package/data,
../package/inst/xml, or ../package/inst/dtd, or other??)
best,
-tony
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Vincent Carey 525-2265 wrote:
>
> > So, do DTD files get placed under data or in a completely separate
location, for installation purposes? (i.e. ../package/data,
../package/inst/xml, or ../package/inst/dtd, or other??)
> >
>
> i know of no convention on this. we may not need one.
> package code that uses the DTD will have to be explicit
> about its location. any of the choices you list may
> be appropriate depending on the visibility and separateness
> of resources desired by the package designer.
>
> does this lead to cacophony in package structure?
> i don't think so.
I think I agree with you. I don't have strong feelings on the matter,
other than if a standard workflow for determination exists, that I
might as well use it. The context is the DTD describing the XML
format for a dataset. I'm tempted to stick it in ../package/inst/dtd,
but was wondering how others have dealt with it. I sent the question
here, since the number of package developers using R XML outside of
this particular mailing list seems small.
best,
-tony
> So, do DTD files get placed under data or in a completely separate
location, for installation purposes? (i.e. ../package/data,
../package/inst/xml, or ../package/inst/dtd, or other??)
>
i know of no convention on this. we may not need one.
package code that uses the DTD will have to be explicit
about its location. any of the choices you list may
be appropriate depending on the visibility and separateness
of resources desired by the package designer.
does this lead to cacophony in package structure?
i don't think so.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:19:56PM -0800, Anthony Rossini wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Vincent Carey 525-2265 wrote:
>
> >
> > > So, do DTD files get placed under data or in a completely
separate location, for installation purposes? (i.e. ../package/data,
../package/inst/xml, or ../package/inst/dtd, or other??)
> > >
> >
> > i know of no convention on this. we may not need one.
> > package code that uses the DTD will have to be explicit
> > about its location. any of the choices you list may
> > be appropriate depending on the visibility and separateness
> > of resources desired by the package designer.
> >
> > does this lead to cacophony in package structure?
> > i don't think so.
>
> I think I agree with you. I don't have strong feelings on the
matter, other than if a standard workflow for determination exists,
that I might as well use it. The context is the DTD describing the
XML format for a dataset. I'm tempted to stick it in
../package/inst/dtd, but was wondering how others have dealt with it.
I sent the question here, since the number of package developers using
R XML outside of this particular mailing list seems small.
>
Me either, somehow I think of it (at least a bit) as data so I like
package/inst/data
but almost anything is fine
we just need to ensure it gets copied over to the installation
directory so it can get found automatically.
> best,
> -tony
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconductor mailing list
> Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch
> http://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
------+
| Robert Gentleman phone : (617) 632-5250
|
| Associate Professor fax: (617) 632-2444
|
| Department of Biostatistics office: M1B28
| Harvard School of Public Health email:
rgentlem@jimmy.dfci.harvard.edu |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
------+
Robert Gentleman <rgentlem@jimmy.harvard.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:19:56PM -0800, Anthony Rossini wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Vincent Carey 525-2265 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > So, do DTD files get placed under data or in a completely
separate location, for installation purposes? (i.e. ../package/data,
../package/inst/xml, or ../package/inst/dtd, or other??)
> > > >
> > >
> > > i know of no convention on this. we may not need one.
> > > package code that uses the DTD will have to be explicit
> > > about its location. any of the choices you list may
> > > be appropriate depending on the visibility and separateness
> > > of resources desired by the package designer.
> > >
> > > does this lead to cacophony in package structure?
> > > i don't think so.
> >
> > I think I agree with you. I don't have strong feelings on the
matter, other than if a standard workflow for determination exists,
that I might as well use it. The context is the DTD describing the
XML format for a dataset. I'm tempted to stick it in
../package/inst/dtd, but was wondering how others have dealt with it.
I sent the question here, since the number of package developers using
R XML outside of this particular mailing list seems small.
> >
> Me either, somehow I think of it (at least a bit) as data so I
like
> package/inst/data
> but almost anything is fine
> we just need to ensure it gets copied over to the installation
> directory so it can get found automatically.
I think eventually you would find that it is better to separate the
dtd from the data -- i.e. use Tony's original idea of a
../package/inst/dtd directory.
One reason for not mixing the DTD and the data is because the DTD
tends to be more permanent than the data. You can be adding or
modifying the data sets but the DTD, because it describes a data
format, is a more stable description.
Also, once you have a established and more-or-less finalized the DTD
it is handy to make it available from an http server so you can
begin the XML file with
<foo>
...
</foo>
and a validating parser will have access to the DTD independently of
the file's location. If you are going to create a collection of DTD's
under, say, www.bioconductor.org/dtd/ it would be handy to have the
DTD's within packages separately accessible and identifiable.
Okay, I like this argument. Unless anyone argues against it, I'll be
using .../package/inst/dtd at least for DTDs which describe data or
data structures.
best,
-tony
On 20 Mar 2002, Douglas Bates wrote:
> Robert Gentleman <rgentlem@jimmy.harvard.edu> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 02:19:56PM -0800, Anthony Rossini wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Vincent Carey 525-2265 wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > So, do DTD files get placed under data or in a completely
separate location, for installation purposes? (i.e. ../package/data,
../package/inst/xml, or ../package/inst/dtd, or other??)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > i know of no convention on this. we may not need one.
> > > > package code that uses the DTD will have to be explicit
> > > > about its location. any of the choices you list may
> > > > be appropriate depending on the visibility and separateness
> > > > of resources desired by the package designer.
> > > >
> > > > does this lead to cacophony in package structure?
> > > > i don't think so.
> > >
> > > I think I agree with you. I don't have strong feelings on the
matter, other than if a standard workflow for determination exists,
that I might as well use it. The context is the DTD describing the
XML format for a dataset. I'm tempted to stick it in
../package/inst/dtd, but was wondering how others have dealt with it.
I sent the question here, since the number of package developers using
R XML outside of this particular mailing list seems small.
> > >
> > Me either, somehow I think of it (at least a bit) as data so I
like
> > package/inst/data
> > but almost anything is fine
> > we just need to ensure it gets copied over to the installation
> > directory so it can get found automatically.
>
> I think eventually you would find that it is better to separate the
> dtd from the data -- i.e. use Tony's original idea of a
> ../package/inst/dtd directory.
>
> One reason for not mixing the DTD and the data is because the DTD
> tends to be more permanent than the data. You can be adding or
> modifying the data sets but the DTD, because it describes a data
> format, is a more stable description.
>
> Also, once you have a established and more-or-less finalized the DTD
> it is handy to make it available from an http server so you can
> begin the XML file with
>
>
>
> <foo>
> ...
> </foo>
>
> and a validating parser will have access to the DTD independently of
> the file's location. If you are going to create a collection of
DTD's
> under, say, www.bioconductor.org/dtd/ it would be handy to have the
> DTD's within packages separately accessible and identifiable.
>
