Tone Merete Bruvik
tone.bruvik at aksis.uib.no
Thu Sep 27 06:20:46 EDT 2007
I found Sebastians comments to the NH chapter very interesting and
relevant. The chapter is different to most of the others, but that is
partly due to that fact that Non-hierarchical Structures does not fit
well in XML, and we should say so very clearly and I think we do.
The part which I think is the main problem, is the discussion of
which encoding method to use. It is probably to long and does not
have a clear conclusion. If that conclusion was clearer, most of the
discussion could be removed. As Syd point out in his replay, we have
had a hard time over years to decide which of these methods should
the recommended. Non of them are perfect, but we should make a
choose, and we should implement the one we prefer in the TEI. But
will we be able to that in P5 1.0? I guess not.
There are different ways to go from here, but with the given time
schedule, I guess that the only real option is to finish the chapter
in it current form with as few changes as possible, and then move the
parts which are not able to be finished for P5 1.0 to P5 1.1.
Tone Merete Bruvik
Den 25. sep. 2007 kl. 20.13 skrev Sebastian Rahtz:
> I just had a quick read; its interesting, but I do feel that the
> it hands over is a bit odd. It seems to tell me generally that if I
> want to
> do non-hierarchical stuff, I should not use the TEI; which is not
> an uninteresting thing to say, but does not belong here.
> Thus most of the examples in 21.3 do not use TEI markup, but
> made-up stuff which looks a bit like TEI, which I find confusing.
> It says cheerfully "The TEI may be customized (using the methods
> in 24.2 Personalization and Customization
> to support this method of encoding
> non-hierarchical structures." But if these are good things to do,
> why are they not in the core TEI? Why do we give with one hand
> and take away with the other? Why do we promote non-conformant
> markup? at least the examples could have been TEI with extra
> elements in a different namespace?
> Too much of this reads more like a paper given at a conference
> about theoretical markup than a chapter in reference Guidelines :-}
> With regard to the examples at the front in German and Italian,
> they are definitely incongruous. How hard can it be
> to find an example of poetry in English where the linguistic
> structure is different from the lines? any old bit of Shakespeare
> will do. Its not even as if the poetry given is especially a good
> demonstration. Using the Schiller to discuss
> "The third view, which we will call the vocal view, is concerned
> with direct
> speech or quotations" seems pretty articifial to me.
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
More information about the tei-council