[tei-council] genetic draft -- big questions

[Lou Burnard]

OK, so are people imagining something like

1.  (teiHeader, facsimile?,  elephant?,  text? )

or

2.  (teiHeader, (elephant?, text?)

or

3. (as 1, but with the proviso that facsimile is deprecated and will 
disappear eventually)

?

At the moment, of course, the model is

(teiHeader, model.resourceLike*, text? )

and the members of model,resourceLike are fsdDecl and facsimile,

The problem is that both facsimile and elephant need to define surfaces 
and zones, a fiddly and tiresome process which one really does not want 
to do more than necessary.


On 22/08/11 12:16, Pierazzo, Elena wrote:
> Good morning Council.
>
>
>> 1. Is this draft headed basically in the right direction? If not, what
>> are the essential things that must change in it?
>
> I think you did a great job, Lou. Thanks a lot for this.
>
>
>>
>>> 2. Should we announce the existence of this draft (AS A DRAFT) to TEI-L
>>> now, or do some more fiddling with it first?
>>
>> You just did, since our archives are public, but in the sense of making
>> an announcement on TEI-L, I think we should wait until we're all happy
>> with it.
>
> I second Martin: there are a few "elephants" to discuss here before we can
> formally involve the TEI-L.
>
>>
>>> 3. The draft still uses the name "<facsimile>" for the element which
>>> contains an document-level tramnscription along with or independent of a
>>> collection of images. The workgroup specifically said that they didn't
>>> like this name, and it is also confusing for those who are accustomed to
>>> the current P5 meaning for<facsimile>   . What name shall we use instead?
>>> ("elephant" was what we said in Chicago, but I don't think that was a
>>> serious suggestion).
>>
>> I'm still really uncomfortable with mixing the original intent of
>> <facsimile>  with this new elephant; it seems to me to violate the
>> separation of concerns. IMHO,<facsimile>  should be restricted to
>> defining surfaces and zones, and this genetic markup should be placed in
>> a sibling element; and I still think that<diploma>  is the best
>> suggestion we had for a tag name.
>
> As you know, I think that using<facsimile>  is not an option. Nevertheless
> a few things happened and I'm now much less inclined toward the name
> <diploma>, namely I have spoken to the Medievalists: for them the word
> 'diploma' has a very distinctive meaning and doesn't meant at all 'a
> document' but a 'very special type of document' and using it has no more
> sense that using, say, 'charter' or 'letter'. My new proposal is now
> <sourceDoc>.
>
> Re Laurent proposal of a telco: sorry, can't make Friday as I will be on
> leave.
> Elena
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for all your work on this, Lou.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>> There are tons of things wrong with this draft as it currently stands,
>>> and they won't get better without your help! I need better (clearer)
>>> examples, I need confirmation that the prose makes sense, I need to be
>>> quizzed about how the content models are supposed to work.
>>>
>>> I'll post a second message listing some of the other specific questions
>>> that struck me as I was producing this draft in a while...
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tei-council mailing list
>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>
>>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived