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

[Martin Holmes]

I think we should post them on the ticket as we gather them, and then 
organize them in a later posting. We're less likely to lose track of 
them that way.

Cheers,
Martin

On 13-05-30 10:21 AM, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> I tend to agree. Shall we find a temporary space to collect use-cases
> and see if we can collate them into coherent groups? I have a bunch of
> people outside council who have specific use-cases for @source, and we
> should look at these alongside yours.
>
> G
>
> On 30/05/2013 13:12, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> On 13-05-30 09:58 AM, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> I was tasked with adding some use-cases from a variety of contexts
>> supporting my contention that @resp ought to be available in lots of
>> places. Personally, I still think it's simpler and cleaner to add it to
>> att.global, but there is substantial resistance to that, so I guess
>> we're going to end up with a list of classes or elements that meet the
>> use-cases. I think att.sourced is a similar case; at the moment, it's
>> only available on quote q writing egXML, but I can see arguments that it
>> should be much more widely available too. Your final comment on the
>> ticket suggests that it's @source that you need, rather than @resp. I
>> think the arguments tend to go in parallel for these two attributes; for
>> instance:
>>
>> <pron resp="#fred"> (Fred is responsible for attesting to this
>> pronunciation)
>>
>> <pron source="#lass"> (The biblio item "lass" is the source of this
>> pronunciation)
>>
>> So I think we should broaden the ticket and handle both together. We're
>> talking about _attribution_ of two different kinds; perhaps there's an
>> argument for att.attribution or some such thing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)