[tei-council] [Fwd: [ tei-Feature Requests-2910712 ] reappraisal of author, editor, and respStmt]

Laurent Romary laurent.romary at loria.fr
Mon Jan 18 04:17:05 EST 2010


I would say so.
Laurent

Le 15 janv. 10 à 17:58, Lou a écrit :

> I think the discussion in this ticket addresses the Action in tcm43,  
> and I'd like Council to express a view as to whether or not the  
> action taken is sufficient to warrant now closing the ticket.
>
>
> De : SourceForge.net <noreply at sourceforge.net>
> Date : 15 janvier 2010 17:55:47 GMT+01:00
> À : "noreply at sourceforge.net" <noreply at sourceforge.net>
> Objet : [ tei-Feature Requests-2910712 ] reappraisal of author,  
> editor, and respStmt
>
>
> Feature Requests item #2910712, was opened at 2009-12-08 14:28
> Message generated for change (Comment added) made by louburnard
> You can respond by visiting:
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=644065&aid=2910712&group_id=106328
>
> Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the  
> comment thread,
> including the initial issue submission, for this request,
> not just the latest update.
> Category: None
>> Group: GREEN
> Status: Open
> Priority: 5
> Private: No
> Submitted By: Kevin Hawkins (kshawkin)
> Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
> Summary: reappraisal of author, editor, and respStmt
>
> Initial Comment:
> There are three elements in TEI which are used to represent various  
> parties responsible for a work:
>
> author
> editor
> respStmt
>
> According to the definition of <editor>, it may take a role=  
> attribute to indicate "the nature of the intellectual  
> responsibility", with suggested values being:
>
> translator
> editor
> compiler
> illustrator
>
> However, 3.11.2.2 says "The author element should be used for the  
> person or agency with primary responsibility for a work's  
> intellectual content, and the element editor for an editor of the  
> work."
>
> I do not consider translators, compilers, and illustrators to be  
> compatible with 3.11.2.2, so I think this discrepancy should be  
> clarified.
>
> According to Lou (at https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2798963&group_id=106328&atid=644065 
>  ), author was meant for primary responsibility, editor for various  
> types of secondary responsibility, and respStmt for anything else.   
> However, Council decided on 2009-12-07 to add @role to author to  
> allow for distinguishing various types of authors.
>
> The distinction among these three elements is problematic.  The  
> TEI's ontology of entities responsible for a work is different from  
> those used in other schemas (like the NLM DTDs for journals, as  
> described in the ticket above, and in library cataloging practice,  
> which does not attempt to distinguish types of responsibility), and  
> it's not clear what purpose it serves to have three different  
> elements when we can't agree on the semantics of them.
>
> I suggest we either prescribe use of these elements more carefully  
> or remove author and editor in favor of the respStmt element, which  
> would have an optional type=.  This attribute could be used by a  
> project if a taxonomy of responsibilities is desired and if the  
> various types of responsibility are not adequately conveyed by free  
> text in resp.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Comment By: Lou Burnard (louburnard)
> Date: 2010-01-15 16:55
>
> Message:
> I have changed the wording at 3.11.2.2 as follows:
> " The <gi>author</gi> element should be used for the person or agency
> with
> primary responsibility for a work's intellectual content, and the
> element <gi>editor</gi> for any others with some responsibility for
> that content, whether or not they are called
> <soCalled>editor</soCalled>.  An organization such as a radio or
> television station is usually accounted <soCalled>author</soCalled> of
> a broadcast, for example, while the author of a Government report will
> usually be the agency which produced it. A translator, illustrator, or
> compiler, may however be marked by means of the <gi>editor</gi>  
> element,
> optionally using the <att>role</att> attribute to specify the nature
> of their responsibility more exactly.
>
> The reason for having the three different elements, as Martin notes,  
> is to
> make life a bit easier for simple uses. I think there is a good case  
> to be
> made for recommending only a subset of what the TEI provides in  
> specific
> contexts, but that's often the case.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Comment By: Martin Holmes (martindholmes)
> Date: 2010-01-14 18:17
>
> Message:
> I think removing <author> and <editor>, as suggested in your last
> paragraph, would be highly disruptive; it would also make life  
> slightly,
> but noticeably, more difficult for newbies, who are happy to see  
> simple tag
> names that they can understand without thinking too hard.
>
> However, there does seem to be a general issue here, which also  
> applies to
> the distinction between <ab> and <p>. If <ab> is the general case,  
> and <p>
> is syntactic sugar for <ab @type="paragraph">, while <respStmt> is the
> general case and <author> is syntactic sugar for
> <respStmt><resp>author</resp></respStmt> -- and I think there are many
> other such cases -- perhaps we should develop a general policy with  
> regard
> to the class membership and attribute availability for such  
> syntactic sugar
> elements. It would also help to see an exhaustive list of such  
> elements --
> does one exist?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You can respond by visiting:
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=644065&aid=2910712&group_id=106328
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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