[tei-council] one <exemplum> or many?

[Lou Burnard]

Surely we have more urgent and important matters to work on than this?

An exemplum " groups an example demonstrating the use of an element 
along with optional paragraphs of commentary"

As the content model shows, it contains a single <egXML>. Whether that 
contains one or  more occurrence of the element being exemplified is 
entirely an editorial matter. Sometimes it's useful to provide muiltiple 
instances, more usually it isn't.

The content of an egXML is supposed to be well formed, but we relaxed 
the constraint that there has to be a single root containing the whole 
content to permit examples containing mixed content.

In this particular case, does it really matter whether or n ot you 
consider the fact that there are three sponsor elements as exemplying 
the repeatability of <sponsor> within its parent? Many may elements are 
repeatable within their parent, and for most of them we don't bother to 
indicate the fact when we exemplify them!



On 07/12/12 14:34, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> On 12/7/2012 4:27 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2012, at 02:11, Kevin Hawkins<kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info>
>>    wrote:
>>
>>> I'm willing to create a ticket and assign itself to me to go through
>>> these if no one feels that there was any intention to using a single
>>> <exemplum>  for multiple examples.
>>
>> Lou can comment better, but in P4 the editors certainly had the facility,
>> and used it, to make multiple distinct examples. So the working assumption must
>> be that when you have an exemplum with multiple children, the author
>> intended it to be a valid free-standing example.
>>
>> I looked  at a trivial one,<sponsor>, surely that is intentionally
>> multiple elements?
> This is an example of a difficult case that could be interpreted two ways:
>
> a) There are three sponsors of a given bibliographic entity (that are
> meant to repeat within a single <titleStmt>)
>
> b) These are three separate examples of the use of the <sponsor> element.
>
> Because I recognize the names of these three organizations as
> co-sponsors of P3, I can guess that this particular case was intended as
> (a).  So I'd leave it, though to be honest I think any example of
> repetition without context would be confusing for a complete novice.