[tei-council] repeating and typing tei:provenance
laurent.romary at inria.fr
Sat Sep 24 00:43:54 EDT 2011
This is a very good move with respect to this ticket. Please go ahead (and agree with Elena, I don't think we need a new FR).
Le 23 sept. 2011 à 18:05, Pierazzo, Elena a écrit :
> Hi Gabby,
> You have my blessing, in case you needed it. I don't think there is the
> need of another FR as the possibility of allowing multiple <provenance> is
> contemplated within the initial description of the ticket.
> On 23/09/2011 16:55, "Bodard, Gabriel" <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Some Council members will already have seen the ticket posted by Lou a
>> couple days ago (http://purl.com/TEI/FR/3411976) re the conflict between
>> the definition of tei:provenance, "descriptive or other information
>> concerning *a single identifiable episode* during the history of a
>> manuscript" on the one hand, and on the other examples (including that
>> at http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#mshy) in
>> which mutiple episodes are described in a single provenance.
>> I pointed out, in support of the examples over the definition, that
>> provenance includes among its possible children tei:listEvent, and that
>> some projects have already used this to represent different episodes in
>> a manuscript's history within a single tei:provenance.
>> The consensus on this ticket however seems to be that the definition is
>> correct, the examples should be emended, and multiple episodes should be
>> represented by repeated, dated tei:provenance elements in tei:history.
>> It has also been suggested that provenance is a specialization of
>> tei"event, so the usage is fine.
>> If that is the case, then I'd like to propose (does this need another
>> ticket?) that as well as changes to the guidelines and correction of
>> examples, the provenance element should allow att.typed (as event does),
>> so that multiple provenances in the history of a single manuscript or
>> object can be typed ("found", "moved", "observed", "lost", "destroyed",
>> "restored" etc.), and looser subtypes can be used to differentiate
>> between different kinds of loss, for example. (We were in the process of
>> writing up a controlled set of values for tei:event/@type for the EpiDoc
>> guidelines, with the intention of leaving @subtype unconstrained.)
>> Does anyone object to this proposal? Should I put up a new FR ticket for
>> it? I'd like to be able to let the EpiDoc community know what we've
>> decided so it can be written into our ODD in advance of the next TEI
>> release, if possible.
>> Dr Gabriel BODARD
>> (Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)
>> Department of Digital 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
>> 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
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr
More information about the tei-council