[tei-council] FR nuncles: new element tei:objectType

[Gabriel Bodard]

If the argument is between tei:object and tei:objectType (as I think it 
is), then the reasons in each direction seem to be:

(a) for tei:object: GB, LR & SR think it looks nicer;

(b) for tei:objectType: LB says it's ambiguous (should refer to object 
itself, not a type or class of object); SIG may want to use tei:object 
to denote something broader than this MS Desc context, and closer to the 
meaning Lou identifies.

Personally, although I'm on side (a), I'm pretty convinced (as I believe 
were the rest of the nuncles) by argument (b).

I agree with Laurent however that we need to describe this carefully.

G

On 05/01/2011 12:00, Laurent Romary wrote:
>
> Le 5 janv. 11 à 12:55, Lou Burnard a écrit :
>
>> On 05/01/11 11:48, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> thanks, those examples do help. and<object>   would be the right word.
>>
>> But still ambiguous.
>
>    From the discussion so far, I have not seen any convergence on a
> fancy alternative. Let us consider that we aim at providing a clear
> description of the thing called<object>  and move along with it.
>
>>
>>> sorry to be dumb, but remind me why @form on<objectDesc>   does not
>>> cut it?
>>>
>>
>> I wondered the same thing -- presumably it's because they want to
>> use it
>> in other contexts than<objectDesc>, as with<material>
>
>
> I think so too. It's a way to have a clearly reified element.
>
>
> Are we set on this?
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/