[tei-council] active/passive again

[Martin Holmes]

On 12-08-06 02:48 AM, Gabriel BODARD wrote:
> Since Council were unconvinced of the value of renaming the
> @active/@passive attributes on <relation> to something more rational
> such as @subject/@object, do you think we could at least express the
> definitions of these attributes in a way that is both grammatically and
> RDF-wise more comprehensible and sensible?
>
> E.g. changing:
> @active	identifies the ‘active’ participants in a non-mutual
> relationship, or all the participants in a mutual one.
> --->
> @active	identifies the subjects of the relationship statement defined by
> this element[, or all the participants in a mutual one<note
> resp="GB">although I don't think this is true, is it? What is @mutual
> for, then?</note>].

This rather suggests to me that where @mutual is used, @active and 
@passive should not be, and vice versa. Are the examples of relations in 
which there are active and passive participants, but also groups of 
mutual ones?

>
> @passive	identifies the ‘passive’ participants in a non-mutual relationship.
> --->
> @passive	identifies the object(s) of the relationship statement made by
> this element.
>
> (I think the existing definitions presuppose that relation points to two
> persons, whereas it is now explicitly defined as appropriate for
> pointing between persons, places, objects and events.)
>
> You can probably find a better way to put this.

I can't, but I feel as though there must be a better terminology than 
subject/object, which comes loaded with linguistic baggage.

Cheers,
Martin

>
> This is a small thing, but if it's considered controversial then I can
> create a ticket for it.
>
> G
>