[tei-council] date-stamping <desc>

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Lou's Laptop wrote:
> So what's the resolution?
we dont have a social mechanism for reaching resolution in the Council, 
remember?
> <desc> gets a @version attribute? the value of which is likely to look 
> like a canonical date but need not?
>
> What about <exemplum>s?
>
that's much much harder. for <desc> and <gloss>, the target
is plainly to arrive at the one final best fit for the given object;
but for exempla we may have many results, all equally interesting.
How often will an exemplum be a straight translation, which
should be changed when the original changes? Obviously, the
markup will be validated anyway. The only situation I can see
is where an example is valid but we see one day that its nonsensical.

a @date or @version on an exemplum is also of little automated use without
a way of uniquely identifying exempla.

I'd go back to my original proposal  of simply allowing @lastChanged on
<gloss>, <desc> (and <exemplum>), and leaving it for local
editorial guidelines to determine when to use it, and how to
interpret it.

Of course, we could add these elements to att.temporal, and use
@to and @from (or whatever) to indicate when a piece of text was handed
over for translation and when it came back.


-- 
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