[tei-council] genetic draft -- big questions
lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Mon Aug 22 07:32:46 EDT 2011
OK, so are people imagining something like
1. (teiHeader, facsimile?, elephant?, text? )
2. (teiHeader, (elephant?, text?)
3. (as 1, but with the proviso that facsimile is deprecated and will
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
> Re Laurent proposal of a telco: sorry, can't make Friday as I will be on
>> Thanks for all your work on this, Lou.
>>> 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
>>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
More information about the tei-council