[tei-council] dating attributes

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> I note that this does not include, e.g., <persName>, the content of
> which describes neither a point nor a span in time. Is this an
> oversight, or are such things deliberately not part of this proposal?
>   
it's that old TEI double-meaning conundrum, whereby
the content is deemed to either _represent_
a duration/pointInTime,
or _have_ a duration/pointInTime.   Simple minds
like mine just accept the situation, but I can dimly
see that the difference exists and may bother some.
Is there a situation where the context does not make
it clear which is intended?
>
> I kinda like the data.temporal.user idea. But how do we get this to
> be user-definable? I.e., what happens if the user *doesn't* define
> it? "notAllowed" perhaps?
>   
An attribute is defined which is initially notAllowed? Its
an attractive idea, if it works in real life.
>> , and the calendar is specified somewhere (not sure 
>>    where) in the header.
>>     
>
> Sounds reasonable. But is there a lot of demand to normalize against
> a calendar other than either (proleptic-)Gregorian or whatever
> calendar the content of the element (and thus its calender=
> attribute) uses? My initial thought was that there is little or no
> such demand, in which case we could think of this as a regularization
> rather than a normalization, and use reg= for this, and norm= for #4
> above. 
>   
my brain hurts. when is normalization not regularisation?
>
> And besides, as Sebastian is likely to point out
+1

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      

Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk