I found the greatest strength of our schema to be its flexibility. In thinking about how to structure my document, it had the benefit of helping me to differentiate the background and answer as two separate entities, but otherwise it allowed for a freedom of form I think is inherent to blogs. Additionally I weighed heavily on the ‘important points’ and ‘roadmap’ tags of our schema, allowing me to think about all needed explanations in a digestible manner, however after reading Tammy’s submission, it was clear that the way I used these tools was not the only way to do so.
One of the few circumstances I found that could benefit from broadening the genre was the ‘scentific_principle’ tag, the description of which feels perhaps too clinical. I think a ‘technical_principal’ might broaden the use of it in a way that explicitly scientific topics in addition to technical topics might be discussed equally. This same point might be said for the ‘fundamental_science_involved’. In both of these instances the documentation would need alteration as well. I think the documentation could also find heuristic benefits if the examples used in sequential element descriptions were related to each other so a user could get an idea of how the topics might be used in conjunction with each other with regard to a particular prompt.
In addition to the flexibility of this schema, I think the majority of my satisfaction was derived from having a clear understanding of the implications of each discussed element as we were creating them. This can be attributed to a) having already gone through the process of developing a schema earlier in class, and b) being in a small group allows for greater command of the final decisions, so less need to make concessions keeps a uniform vision in tact.
Although I felt very content when writing my entry, I am curious if other group members see the way in which we approached elements as being the effect of flexibility, or that of us not having a clear understanding of the schema. From looking at the other members (aside from the broad outline of the schema), we leverage elements as they fit to our style, rather than fitting our style to the elements. I see this as being an inherent part of the blogging domain, however perhaps other members will want to instantiate a more regimented approach before handing our schema off to another group.
