[tei-council] AMBER for your action
Dan O'Donnell
daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca
Mon Mar 16 21:24:54 EDT 2009
> AMBER Feature Requests
>
> New, not yet discussed:
>
> 2673045 new attribute @rational on num
>
Maybe.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2673045&group_id=106328&atid=644065
I lean towards yes. But what about the comments at the bottom. Are there
other implications?
> 2672530 Remove repository element requirement in msIdentifier
>
Maybe.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2672530&group_id=106328&atid=644065
Here I wonder if the problem may involve the semantics of the element
name which could be adjusted with some minor changes. What Hugh is
really concerned about is that he thinks that some material has
locations rather than repositories. Looking at the element description,
I see that repository is very manuscript centric--in fact much more than
our description of the applicability of the module:
Element: contains the name of a repository within which manuscripts are
stored, possibly forming part of an institution
Manuscript module description: Although originally developed to meet the
needs of cataloguers and scholars working with medieval manuscripts in
the European tradition, the scheme presented here is general enough that
it can also be extended to other traditions and materials, and is
potentially useful for any kind of inscribed artefact.
So my initial solution would be to broaden the semantics of repository
to mean "current location." This is what Lou suggests at the end it is
supposed to mean. Perhaps clarify it?
> 2640345 add first and last page recommandation for biblScope
>
Yes.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2672530&group_id=106328&atid=644065
Seems very sensible with the caveats and suggestions by James and Peter
in the comments.
> 2411994 Define canonical way of referencing TEI element definitions
>
Maybe~no
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2411994&group_id=106328&atid=644065
This is a major undertaking, IMO. As the note says, we have a canonical
way of referencing (by URL). This is a request to map this to another
system that would allow third party resolution. Perhaps this is a P5.5
undertaking (i.e. preparatory for P6), but then I'd want to hear a
cost/benefit analysis.
> Old: discussed without resolution
>
> 2242434 element for text suppressed by the editor
>
Maybe
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2242434&group_id=106328&atid=644065
While I emotionally would want to say yes, gap is syntactically and
semantically the janus opposite to supplied. It's description fits the
requirements of this request: indicates a point where material has been
omitted in a transcription, whether for editorial reasons described in
the TEI header, as part of sampling practice, or because the material is
illegible, invisible, or inaudible.
I wonder if the problem is not the natural language semantics of gap:
that sounds like a found problem or a sampling question. What is wanted
here is a term that can also cover more deliberateness. If gap had been
named "omitted" I wonder if we'd have the problem. Perhaps a change in
the description to really emphasise the extent to which this is covered
already?
So I think probably the answer in the end will have to be reeducation
rather than accommodation. That this education will need to be maoist in
intensity is indicated by the fact that none of Torsten's learned
opponents mentioned gap.
> 2209933 content model of 'am' (cf bug 2542813)
maybe.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2209933&group_id=106328&atid=644065
This is an old problem similar to what used to affect w: that is to say
if you are transcribing for meaning by indicating am, are you really
also transcribing for diplomatic features like unclear? What is striking
in each of the cases Gabriel supplies is that he in fact knows what the
resolution is, indicating that from the perspective of the text (rather
than its diplomatics) the text is not unclear.
I'm sympathetic to the processing issues, but found myself working with
w that there is some real reason in the current madness. Elena makes a
good point in her comment. If we say no here (and even if we don't),
perhaps we need to look at abbr?
>
> 2055891 Placement of schematron rules
>
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2055891&group_id=106328&atid=644065
No opinion.
> 1954920 @role to be returned to att.naming
>
maybe.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1954920&group_id=106328&atid=644065
Like to see an example.
> 2493417 <idno> coverage
>
yes
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2493417&group_id=106328&atid=644065
I think Lou is right here in his followup to Peter's long comment on the
discussion. Peter is also right, IMO. Which is evidence of a category
disagreement. It seems to me that we can implement Laurent's suggestion
and Peter's (though I have some caveats on the actual implementation of
what Peter wants) side by side. And as Lou says, Laurent's original idea
is easy to conceptualise and implement.
> AMBER Bugs
>
> New, not yet discussed:
>
> 2607768 <figure> should be global
>
Yes.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2607768&group_id=106328&atid=644062
(Just ran into the situation Syd describes adding the badges to tei-c,
in fact). I appreciate Lou's point in the comments about graphic already
being global: but are not the children of figure also useful wherever
graphic is?
> 2355564 <figure> should be allowed inside <trailer>
>
Yes
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2355564&group_id=106328&atid=644062
Because of above. Lou's comment suggestions that he has strong
reservations against?
> 2542813 origDate should allow more than text content
>
Maybe~yes
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2542813&group_id=106328&atid=644062
I'm leaning to this because I find the "far fetched" example in source
forge fairly convincing and not far fetched, having encountered it
myself. I find the Bodleian bit less convincing, however, as a rationale.
Lou's point in his comment about consistency is important.
> 2526505 content model of <div> eschews <trailer>
>
Maybe
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2526505&group_id=106328&atid=644062
I'd have said yes had I not seen the other votes: perhaps I just don't
understand the issue. As I understand it, Syd's actually misnamed the
bug: his point is that there are some allowable combinations with
trailer that seem to be arbitrarily excluded when other combinations are
allowed.
Perhaps we need some examples, and if none are forthcoming, perhaps we
need to consider some of the other potentially nonsensical combinations
Syd points out?
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
--
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Associate Professor of English
University of Lethbridge
Chair and CEO, Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org/)
Founding Director, Digital Medievalist Project (http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/)
Chair, Electronic Editions Advisory Board, Medieval Academy of America
Vox: +1 403 329-2377
Fax: +1 403 382-7191 (non-confidental)
Home Page: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/
More information about the tei-council
mailing list