[tei-council] oops; I mis-led y'all on 'limited phrase' task

[Conal Tuohy]

I favour plan B too.

For the elements which (because they appear inside <text> as well) can't use the new model class, will we need to define alternative elements (i.e. for each foo we will need a headerFoo)?


-----Original Message-----
From: tei-council-bounces at lists.village.Virginia.EDU on behalf of Syd Bauman
Sent: Thu 23/11/06 10:11
To: TEI Council
Subject: [tei-council] oops; I mis-led y'all on 'limited phrase' task
 
My apologies, folks. During the call I mis-read the dates associated
with last call's items, and thus incorrectly accepted blame for the
'limited phrase' issue not having moved forward. In response to my
mis-reporting the situation, Lou accepted an action item to further
refine the problem. In tidying up my notes I realized the error I
made.

Here is what was supposed to have happened, and what I believe should
happen next.

Each and every council member was supposed to review the list of
elements that have phrase-level content, and post any disagreements
about my (hasty) classification of each.[1] Each element is
classified as either "YES", it is a candidate for having the limited
phrase as its content (there are 34 of these), or "No" it is not a
candidate. There are 175 of these. One way to think of the division
is that, generally speaking, an element should use the limited
phrase as its content iff it is never used for transcription of
extant sources.

This list was announced on Sep 26; I think Sebastian is the only one
who commented on it -- he said it "looks non-controversial".

Commenting on this list was an action on the Council for Wed 11 Oct.
*After* Council had commented, I was supposed to draft an ODD for the
new model class, and make it available for comment.


WHAT NEXT

I personally do not think it necessary that Lou write up an issue
paper on this. Except perhaps for those among us who were not in
Kyoto, I'm pretty confident everyone understands the issues.

I think we should do one of two things next. 

Plan A
---- -
Action is re-assigned. Everyone should read the list and post comments
(even if comment is only "I read it and I don't care") by, say, Thu
07 Dec. I will send out reminders before the due date. Based on those
comments, we will go ahead and create the new model class and use it
where deemed appropriate. 

Plan B
---- -
We give up on the idea of everyone reading and commenting ahead of
time. Council just says "Syd, go ahead and do it", and I create the
new model class (which will probably require some discussion, BTW),
and use it for the "YES" elements' contents. We can always change an
element's content later if someone thinks I've misclassified it.

Either Way
------ ---
As soon as we've implemented the new model class for those elements
in the "YES" category, we then get to discuss the problem of what to
do about all those elements for which it would be better to have the
new class as content when they appear in the header, but they also
occur in <text>, and thus can't use the more restrictive model (e.g.,
<name> and <p>).


Again, my apologies for steering you all the wrong way on this during
the call. 


Note
----
[1] The list is at
    http://www.tei-c.org/Council/limited_phrase.xml?style=printable,
    and I think it most useful to look at section 3.

_______________________________________________
tei-council mailing list
tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council