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

[Gabriel Bodard]

No, I 'd give my vote to tei:objectType, as agreed by the 4 nuncles and 
(I think) Lou.

tei:object: LR
tei:objectType: MH, GB

On 05/01/2011 14:20, Laurent Romary wrote:
> Completing ballot...
>
> Le 5 janv. 11 à 13:17, Laurent Romary a écrit :
>
>> Let us make a quick ballot on this. I suggest a yes/no answer to
>> adopting<object>. add your initials there:
>>
>> yes: LR, GB
>> no: MH (objectType)
>>
>>
>> Le 5 janv. 11 à 13:09, Gabriel Bodard a écrit :
>>
>>> 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/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tei-council mailing list
>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>
>> Laurent Romary
>> INRIA&  HUB-IDSL
>> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA&  HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>
>
>

-- 
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/