[tei-council] genetic draft -- from Brett, pt. 2

James Cummings James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Thu Aug 25 11:27:15 EDT 2011

On 25/08/11 16:03, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2011, at 15:54, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Oops, no it was a premature tap on the SEND button.
>> I meant to say how about "transcript" for sourceDoc ?
> i said that 2 days ago and you pooh-poohed it…

A developer working on genetic editing projects who happens to read this 
archive mentioned to me over a pint last night that if geneticists were 
reading this willy-nilly debating over hard-chosen names they might be 
put out. I only mention it as a reminder that some people are watching 
these conversations with great interest.

The point about the word 'document' or possible 'sourceDoc' is 
highlighting the difference between 'text' and (physical) 'document'. 
Whatever name is chosen it should be preserving or strengthening that 
distinction. (i.e. I have no problem with document or sourceDoc, I think 
'transcript' means the wrong thing.)

With 'layer' and similar namings I'm happy enough with those, but do 
have a slight worry that this prefers a spatial (rather than temporal or 
conceptual set of changes) metaphor. But I'm more willing to compromise 
on that than (say) merging <document> and <facsimile> into a single thing.

However, I think council could go round in circles for ages about these 
names, and would be happy to delegate the bickering over this to a 
subcommittee of 3 ppl or so including those like Elena and Lou who have 
spent the most time immersed in the genetic editing community. (But 
maybe I'm alone in my trusting nature.)


Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
OUCS, University of Oxford

More information about the tei-council mailing list