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

[Gabriel Bodard]

So when you say you have this in hand, you mean you intend to come up 
with a full proposal for which new elements/classes you would like @resp 
to be available on?

Should we discuss @source separately, or in parallel?

G

On 30/05/2013 12:15, Martin Holmes wrote:
> I have an open ticket on @resp:
>
> <http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/443/>
>
> which I haven't had time to proceed with. I do have it in hand, though.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 13-05-30 07:42 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>> On 30/05/13 15:31, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Yes, I seem to remember specifically quite some resistance to the
>> idea that either of these be truly made global.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I've not personally got any use-cases to hand where I've felt I
>> needed this, but agree with some of the arguments for extending
>> it more widely. I'm really not sure how to implement that
>> sensibly or where to draw the line in this case.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>>
>>> 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/