[tei-council] Proposal <idno> coverage -SF 2493417

Lou Burnard lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Thu Jan 22 04:30:38 EST 2009


Yes, apologies for forgetting that! it is a strong argument for not 
using @key in this case, I agree. But I remain unhappy with the idea of 
introducing additional elements inside what is basically a text only 
element like <author>. Another possibility I suppose might be to
put all the <idno>s for an item together, outside <author> or <publisher> ?

Laurent Romary wrote:
> The other (important) argument is that we need to have more then one 
> <idno> for one author (cf. examples provided by Peter).
> 
> Le 22 janv. 09 à 10:04, Lou Burnard a écrit :
> 
>> Sorry to be picky, but  if I have understood it correctly, the 
>> existing proposal certainly does break current encoding practice.My 
>> understanding is that the current proposal would include the new 
>> <idno> as a child of <author>, title etc. Please tell me I am wrong if 
>> that is not the case!
>>
>> If the only argument against using the existing @key to provide an 
>> identifier of this kind is that it does not allow you to specify the 
>> source for the associated range of keyv values, why not propose an 
>> additional @keySource attribute to att.naming? That would integrate 
>> very nicely with current practice, avoid duplication, and add a useful 
>> new feature.
>>
>>
>>
>> , Laurent Romary wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Whether or not it is a major semantic shift, the  proposal has the 
>>> property not to break existing usage and integrate smoothly in the 
>>> encoding practices that lay behind the use of <idno> for other 
>>> bibliographical component (note that an ISSN reference does not sit 
>>> around on a shelf either: its an abstract entity allowing one to 
>>> identify groups of publications ) one culd use the same argument to 
>>> mean that an author identifier groups all papers from one author).
>>> Anyhow, I fully support Peter's argumentation.
>>> Laurent
>>> Le 21 janv. 09 à 23:11, Lou Burnard a écrit :
>>>> Peter Boot wrote:
>>>>> This does not involve, as Syd wrote on the TEI in Libraries
>>>>> mailing list
>>>>> (https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0901B&L=TEILIB-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=2774), 
>>>>>
>>>>> a ‘semantic shift’: <idno> would have the same meaning it always 
>>>>> had, it
>>>>> would just be applied to new elements.
>>>>
>>>> That is *precisely* what I would consider to be a semantic shift!
>>>> We have an element called "persName" which has the semantics of "name
>>>> applied to a person". If we redefine it to mean "name applied to a
>>>> vegetable", it's still a name, but its semantics have changed.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly the current meaning of <idno> is that it's "an identifier for
>>>> a bibliographic item". Authors are not bibliographic items. They do not
>>>> (usually) sit around on shelves, and you cannot ask for a copy of one!
>>>> By all means let's expand its semantics to include authors (etc), if we
>>>> want to do that, but let's not pretend we're not making a major change
>>>> in the meaning of this element.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
> 



More information about the tei-council mailing list