[tei-council] "global" @source [was Re: Fwd: RE: @resp]

[Gabriel Bodard]

I don't think there's a ticket for this yet (please correct me if I've 
missed it) but this question (of making @source (a) available more 
widely than just on quote, egXML, etc., and (b) expanding its semantics 
to the source of a piece of information, datum, translation, encoding 
rather than just a quotation) is intimately tied up with 
https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/443/ (on making @resp 
more widely available).

As I understand and remember it, we had gotten as far as agreeing that 
both @resp and @source would usefully be more widely available than they 
currently are. (We would probably also agree that neither of these 
should be technically global attributes.) But how do we go forward to a 
decision somewhere in between the two extremes?

I think the way forward is to collect (in a ticket? in a wiki page? in 
emails to the list/to me?) specific and documented use-cases of elements 
which we need to be able to attribute to a particular encoder, or whose 
content we need to attribute to a bibliographical source somewhere. From 
these examples, we should try to come up with a coherent proposal for 
the extension of both of these attributes.

Does this seem reasonable? Does anyone else want to collate this 
information? Any preference as to where/how we do this? (Do we need a 
new ticket alongside FR 443, or should we have both conversations 
together in there?)

Gabby

On 02/02/2013 14:39, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> Surely the definition of @source only contains the word "quotation"
> because it was designed for <q>, <quote>, etc. If we consider it a
> suitable mechanism for indicating the bibliographic source of a set of
> dimensions, for example, then that definition would have to change.
>
> [Aside: when marking up apparatus criticus, I use @resp to point to
> bibiographical references for readings and conjectures, not to persons.
> Does this mean @source would be more appropriate for this use?]
>
> G
>
> On 02/02/2013 19:14, James Cummings wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I can see att.responsibility being made available more generally
>> (I'm very reluctant to say globally until I've really sat down
>> and thought about the implications of that...) I understand it
>> may have once(?) been intended for editorial intrusions into a
>> transcription or edition but believe we've generalised out such
>> indications to refer to any markup or encoding.  Maybe it was
>> always intended as such.
>>
>> I can see arguments for @source (which is where this started
>> right?) on more things and that att.editLike should get it from
>> the att.source class.  But, I think we have to be careful that it
>> is available only on things which can be classified as containing
>> a 'quotation or citation' in some way since it "provides a
>> pointer to the bibliographical source from which a quotation or
>> citation is drawn."  Either that, or this definition would have
>> to be changed.
>>
>> Why does egXML get @source and not eg incidentally?
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/02/13 18:27, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>> Seconded.
>>>
>>> I (as I pointed out in another venue recently) am regularly surprised to
>>> re-learn that @resp isn't global already. I can't imagine any element
>>> that I would not want to be able to say either who is responsible for
>>> the decisions it represents, or from what publication the information so
>>> tagged comes. (Certainly everything in msDesc, as well as editLike, at
>>> the very least.)
>>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> On 02/02/2013 17:07, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 13-02-02 02:47 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>> Tomaz has a good point here. Presumably att.editLike should inherit the
>>>>> @source attribute from att.sourced ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am waiting for someone to want @source to be added to att.global...
>>>>
>>>> And that would be me. I can imagine a use-case for virtually any
>>>> element. I'd also like @resp to be global, incidentally -- same
>>>> argument. I need to assign responsibility for <pron>, <seg>, <def> and
>>>> all sorts of other bits and pieces in a dictionary project I'm working on.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: RE: @resp
>>>>> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 10:09:19 +0100
>>>>> From: Tomaz Erjavec <tomaz.erjavec at ijs.si>
>>>>> To: 'Lou Burnard' <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
>>>>> CC: <TEI-L at LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> @source is the only attribute defined in the att.source class (with
>>>>> quote q writing egXML as members).
>>>>> But @source is also defined (directly, not via class) as an attribute of
>>>>> att.editLike, so in fact quite a lot of other elements already have it.
>>>>> Is there any particular reason that it is defined in two different
>>>>> places? I'd say it only confuses things.
>>>>> And, yes, it would probably be a good idea to have source on even more
>>>>> elements, e.g. person and all its descendants.
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Tomaž
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388

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