[tei-council] Disambiguation of <ident> and <idno> (and also <gi>)

[Martin Holmes]

If everyone is of the view that <idno> and <ident> overlap, and the same 
information belongs in one or the other depending on context, then I'll 
abandon my attempt to clarify their definitions; it was based on a 
misunderstanding. I'm with Laurent in believing that they are for 
completely different purposes, but if Council believes they're not, then 
we should deprecate one of them because the difference is pointless and 
confusing. I thought I'd identified a useful distinction that justified 
the existence of both, but if not, then I'll just close that ticket and 
raise another suggesting that one be deprecated.

So can we have a show of hands: Who agrees with the following statement?

The same information can appear in both <idno> and <ident>, and the 
decision as to which to use depends entirely upon context.

-1 from me.

Cheers,
Martin

On 11-11-24 04:51 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 24/11/11 12:42, Laurent Romary wrote:
>>
>> Le 24 nov. 2011 à 13:39, Sebastian Rahtz a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Nov 2011, at 11:48, Laurent Romary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> just what<ident>   is for, surely? it is sugar for<hi rend="identifier">
>>>>
>>>> That's exactly what I (didn't - indeed) want (ed) to hear from you. From an ontological point of view I don't like so much to see the same object receiving a schizophrenic treatment depending on where it appears (and we do mean the same thing in both cases).
>>>>
>>>
>>> <idno>   is a superset of<ident>.  It does the same job, but adds extra semantics, viz that
>>> not only am I identifying this as an ID in general, but actually as the actual ID of my parent object.
>>>
>>
>> Should they then have the same content model (ident becoming recursive if Idno is)?
>
> Hard to say no to that... tho I'd still rather see<hi>  permitted in
> there....
>
>