[tei-council] sex confession

[Syd Bauman]

> > 1. Add a new numeric code, say "7", that means "mixed", to data.sex.
> > 2. Use
> >      attribute sex { data.sex | "mixed" }
> >    for sex= of <personGrp>
> > 3. Change the datatype so that the values are "not known", "male",
> >    "female", and "not specified", and then use #2.
> > 4. Remove "mixed" from the possible values of sex= of <personGrp> and
> >    either
> >    a) say "you can't say that -- tough", or
> >    b) say "if sex= is *not* specified, it is presumed to be mixed"
> > 5. Remove sex= from <personGrp> entirely -- if you want to know,
> >    check the children[1]

JF> Solution 2 sounds reasonable to me. I like the fact that it makes
JF> a clear distinction between the ISO codes and the value which is
JF> not a member thereof.

SR> My preference is for 4, followed by 5,  followed by 2.


I think 1 is a bad idea, as it's confusing, and what do we do when
ISO updates their standard and uses the number we picked?

I like 3, but have already been outvoted on that.

4a and 5 turn out to have a major problem -- a <personGrp> element
does not group a bunch of <person> elements, but rather just
describes the group. Thus it *needs* to be able to say "mixed", and I
can well imagine people wanting even more precision than that. (E.g.,
to be able to specify exact counts, or rough percentages, of each
sex.)

So I think we are down to 2 or 4b. For the moment I've checked in a
version that uses 2. Those who want to argue for 4b or a system that
allows more flexibility and precision should speak up now (and thus
be drafted for the <soCalled>prosopography</soCalled> WG! :-)