[tei-council] [Fwd: SV: [Fwd: Anyone for roles?]]

[Lou Burnard]

I took the liberty of copying my earlier message on this topic to an 
ex-council member who I know to have views on this issue. His comment is 
as follows

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: SV: [Fwd: [tei-council] Anyone for roles?]
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:06:36 +0100
From: Matthew James Driscoll <mjd at hum.ku.dk>
To: Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
References: <496DE28E.6040307 at oucs.ox.ac.uk>

Did you mean to send this to me, give that I'm no longer on the council?

Even if you didn't, I do have an opinion, one I think you know, which is
that we need in context to be able to indicate that X is named here in
his function as Y rather than Z. Whether we call it @role is another
matter. I have always recognised the validity of the argument that says
that the role of a name is to name things. Which is why I once upon a
time suggested @persRole as the name of the attribute (which obviously
wouldn't work for org etc.). Some other name perhaps: bit, business,
capacity, function, guise, job, office, part, piece, position, post,
posture, stint, task? Capacity's rather good, isn't it?

<name capacity="voice_of_reason">Matthew</name>


-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Lou Burnard [mailto:lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk]
Sendt: 14. januar 2009 14:03
Til: Matthew James Driscoll
Emne: [Fwd: [tei-council] Anyone for roles?]