[tei-council] Bug: make geo declaring

[Gabriel Bodard]

Now that I look at it, I'm not clear exactly what we do want to say 
about the content/format of <geo>. As Martin says, we obviously want to 
get rid of the note as written, which says:

1. all <geo> in a document need to use the same coordinate system;

2. in absence of <geoDecl>, this is assumed to be a space-delimited pair 
of coords (lat followed by long) "according to the World Geodetic System."

The first part obviously needs to go; do we need to think some more 
about the format we want to encourage as the default? It's true that a 
coordinate pair will be the most common content, but what do we want to 
recommend for people who want, like Martin, to represent a polygon or 
polyline?

I was thinking that a useful rule might be to follow an existing 
standard like gml:posList, but that expects coordinate pairs to be 
comma-delimited, and lines/polygons to be made up of a space-delimited 
list of such pairs. This is the opposite of what we seem to suggest now, 
and would therefore break a lot of people's usage.

Any other suggestions?

(Final question: do we also want to give some guidance under <geoDecl> 
about how to define more than one datum and refer back to them?)

G

On 2012-01-12 21:17, Martin Holmes wrote:
> No, the consensus is on<geo>  only. We're still arguing about
> <location>. But the ticket requests "multiple<geo>  tags in a<location>
> element (which AFAIK has always been permitted), and the removal of the
> restriction for all<geo>  tags to use the same coordinate system. This
> change would accomplish that. Of course, before closing the ticket we
> should check that all references and descriptive text are appropriately
> updated, but the addition of<geo>  to att.declaring alone answers the
> ticket, I think, and should solve the submitter's problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 12-01-12 12:42 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> Is there really consensus to make<location>   a member of att.declaring?
>>     I don't see that.  --Kevin
>>
>> On 1/12/12 6:44 AM, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>> There's been a little bit of discussion on the ticket, and it looks like
>>> we're more or less agreed that we could reasonable make both<geo>    and
>>> <location>    members of att.declaring. I'll implement this today if no one
>>> objects, but I thought I'd ask here if anyone wants to weigh in on the
>>> minor debate between Martin and myself first...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Gabby
>>>
>>> On 2012-01-10 16:30, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>>> Dear Councillors,
>>>>
>>>> A reminder of a bug ticket that was submitted last November (just too
>>>> late to make it into the last release, apparently), suggesting that
>>>> <geo>     be added to att.declaring:
>>>>
>>>> http://purl.org/TEI/BUGS/3440771
>>>>
>>>> If everyone is agreeable, I'm happy to go ahead and make this change in
>>>> the source. (I know it won't be released for a while now, but if I do it
>>>> now we won't forget in future.)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Gabby
>>>>
>>>
>

-- 
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

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/