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

[Laurent Romary]

fine. others?

Le 5 janv. 11 à 15:26, Gabriel Bodard a écrit :

> 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/

Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr