[tei-council] note in sourceDesc

[Martin Holmes]

On 14-03-12 12:24 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>
> There is another simple solution to the "p-in-header is different from
> p-in-text" problem out there in the wild, which I've been meaning to
> throw into the mix. This is what they do in the DTA : they have a
> different ODD for the header and for the text. Both define valid subsets
> of tei-all, of course, but each generates a different schema, which you
> can then use to validate the header and the text separately.

Intriguing. How does it actually work? Do you have to put the header in 
a different namespace?

Cheers,
Martin

>
> I've been meaning to see how effectively you could do this with a single
> ODD containing two schema specs.
>
> I still want to put <note> inside <sourceDesc> though cos I think it
> really IS a note.
>
> Some further comments below:
>
>
> On 12/03/14 18:30, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> On 14-03-12 11:14 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> I am unsure whether I believe in
>>>
>>>       a) have a system for different content models for <p> in header and in text
>>> or
>>>       b) making a new element for the header
>>>
>>> i incline to both. i.e.it is good to get a) working for when we need it, but
>>> actually I don’t think its the right answer here, we need the neutral
>>> “text container” element for use in the header.
>> We already have <ab> for that, I think. The situation presumably is that
>> people feel they are writing in paragraphs, or should be able to do so,
>> not in "anonymous blocks", even when they're writing in the header.
>
> I'm not sure that I understand this point at all. The difference between
> <p> and <ab> is not a matter of how people feel about the throes of
> composition, surely. An <ab> is just a block of text which might be
> considered prose or verse or anything. A <p> is a block of text forming
> part of a prose narrative. As I said on the ticket, there are some
> elements in the header which definitely contain this kind of <p> and
> others which arguably don't, or need not.
>
> Note that just saying "use <ab> in the header and <p> in the text"
> though initially attractive doesn't help the fundamental problem,
> because there are definitely texts (e.g. the Bible) where the narrative
> is constructed in terms of things for which <ab> is pretty much the best
> solution
>>> Allowing <note>
>>> just obfuscates matters further in my book, by diluting <note>
>>> to a catchall container with no real semantics at all.
>> I have some sympathy with this. At the same time, I do tend to like more
>> elements to be available in more places as a general principle.
>
> I disagree that my proposed use of <note> is an obfuscation. It's an
> annotation on the content of <sourceDoc> to say "there is nothing to say
> about the source" rather than providing a bibliographic description of
> the source. <note> is for representing annotations. I suspect that much
> of Sebastian's antipathy to the idea here is fueled by anxiety about how
> to render the wretched beast.
>>> BUT if we went to not having <p> in the header, and dropping DTDs,
>>> we’d be in serious trouble with our users. Declaring backward incompatible
>>> P6 effectively forks the TEI, and might double the maintenance.
>> It's no different from moving from P4 to P5: there's a new version,
>> we're mainly focused on developing that, and we do maintenance update to
>> the old one for a specified period of time. Meanwhile, encouraging
>> people to move away from DTDs is doing them a favour, but no-one is
>> required to. I still have one P4 project that works fine, and I'm not
>> planning to migrate it in the near future.
>
> This whole DTD support issue has really NOTHING to do with the issue we
> are discussing, but just for the record, I think if we did remove
> support for DTDs, that would definitely be a move to P6. However unless
> Brussels requires us to do so, I see no need for a referendum on the
> topic. (This is an obscure reference to today's British political gossip)
>>> So I vote for
>>>     * doing nothing here, Lou’s <note> is just sticking plaster on a weeping sore
>>>     * recommending people use Schematron to constrain <p>
>
> See above for using <note> : is the hon member suggesting we should just
> leave weeping sores to dribble on when there's a perfectly effective
> plaister we could apply?
>
>