General Category > BeerXML Standard Document
BJCP Stlyes XML <--> BeerXML
GregR:
I've recently started updated the BJCP XML for the BJCP to cincide with their 2008 updates to the style guidelines.
There's been a few comments on here about the BJCP Styles XML:
Concerning "styletype"....
--- Quote ---jvetter wrote:
BJCP breaks styles down based on the categories used for judging (aroma, apperence, mouthfeel, flavor, overall impression) in addtion to having comments, ingredients, history, and examples. The StyleType though only accounts for ingredients and examples. What was the intention of the StyleType? Was it to support a general purpose style record or specifically for BJCP styles. If its the latter then maybe the elements should be adjusted to better fit BJCP. Otherwise I would assume we should put the extra info under notes if we want to record it?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---AntonW wrote:
The BeerXML StyleType hasn't changed much from the original 1.0 definition - which I believe was based on a condensed version of an early draft of the BJCP standard. I did take a look at the most recent BJCP standard XML stylesheet and found it a bit too freeform in the way it handled the record data. The best solution would be to refactor the BJCP standard and BeerXML StyleType so we may collaborate with the BJCP folks and share data between the standards.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Also, why are we requiring use of only xml 1.0 with latin-1 encoding type? As specified here:
[code]<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<RECIPES>
--- End quote ---
AntonW:
Hi Greg,
Here are a few questions in regard to the BJCP style guideline XSD that I've had:
* Why does the BJCP XSD encode html list items and hyperlinks when they can be generated from normalized data via XSL?
* Why are beer, mead and cider structures defined within the same class?
* Why do <category> and <subcategory> store their values as attributes instead of within elements?
* For flexible stats, doesn't it make more sense to include flexible as an attribute for <low> and <high> instead of the root <stat-type> element?
* Why don't the stats have units?
* Why doesn't the revision have major and minor segments?
Since the BJCP owns the information contained within the BJCP styleguide, it probably doesn't make sense for BeerXML styles to be perfectly compliant with the BJCP information. But it would be nice if the BJCP group would allow BeerXML consumer programs to allow their users to download, install and utilize the most recent BJCP XML styleguide information for free (like eclipse-plugins work with eclipse).
-Anton
GregR:
--- Quote ---Since the BJCP owns the information contained within the BJCP styleguide, it probably doesn't make sense for BeerXML styles to be perfectly compliant with the BJCP information.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. But some extra similarities here and there will make it a little easier to work with both. ;-)
--- Quote --- But it would be nice if the BJCP group would allow BeerXML consumer programs to allow their users to download, install and utilize the most recent BJCP XML styleguide information for free (like eclipse-plugins work with eclipse).
--- End quote ---
I think this is currently allowed, as long as you don't edit the files, and give BJCP credit when credit is due.
Why does the BJCP XSD encode html list items and hyperlinks when they can be generated from normalized data via XSL?
I don't know. I've tried contacting the original author of the BJCP XML but to no avail. He only give a domain name as a contact and it's an expired domain. I've asked around but no one has his contact info. But I wouldn't mind changing this...though it wasn't on my priority list as it wasn't bugging me too much - so far. ;-)
* Why are beer, mead and cider structures defined within the same class?
Very good question. I'm planning on asking them if this can be changed. This has been bugging me too.
*Why do <category> and <subcategory> store their values as attributes instead of within elements?
This is one that I don't have a problem with. The attributes are supplying meta-data in a way. But I don't feel strongly about it either way.
* For flexible stats, doesn't it make more sense to include flexible as an attribute for <low> and <high> instead of the root <stat-type> element?
This one has vexed me ever since I took this on. I can't for the life of me figure out where he pulled this "attribute" from. It's not it the style guidelines as far as I can tell. I "think" I understand what it's implying, but where he got the true vs. false for each value is beyond me. I'd like to find out.
* Why don't the stats have units?
Oh, HOW I agree! The original author implied the units (for the most part) in the tag names though. <srm> <ibu> ... I would've done it differently... The way it's implemented you're stuck with those units (in a sense).
However, when looking through the text of the style guide, it's quite obvious that the whole thing is very American-centric. For example, whenever a temperature is mentioned in the text (e.g. "...single rest at 149
AntonW:
Hi Greg,
It sounds like you're definitely on the right track! If you can convince the BJCP Committee to allow you to slightly normalize their styleguide data into a format that more closely represents records of useful information then I'm sure everybody would be happy to give you major thanks and the BJCP full credits for their styleguide XML. I'm not sure if transforms were popular/standardized when the original BJCP XSD was created, which would explain a lot of the inline stuff.
-Anton
GregR:
--- Quote --- * For flexible stats, doesn't it make more sense to include flexible as an attribute for <low> and <high> instead of the root <stat-type> element?
This one has vexed me ever since I took this on. I can't for the life of me figure out where he pulled this "attribute" from. It's not it the style guidelines as far as I can tell. I "think" I understand what it's implying, but where he got the true vs. false for each value is beyond me. I'd like to find out.
--- End quote ---
Aha, I figured it out. I was reading the "summary of changes" for the 2008 updates and it commented that they had now removed the "+" that had been used in style parameters in order to "allow the style numbers to be used in databases or calculations". Well that was nice of them. ;-) So the flexible attributes were to denote the parameters that had a "+", such as for Schwarzbiers color, "SRM: 17
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version