[tei-council] correspdesc musings

[Syd Bauman]

My post to the TEI-CORRESP-SIG mailing list is available at 
  https://listserv.brown.edu/?A2=ind1407&L=TEI-CORRESP-SIG&F=&S=&P=2402
Further thoughts interlineated below.


> > 3. I am not sure that I understand fully the implications of
> > distinguishing "sender" and "author". If my wife writes a
> > postcard and we both sign it, I guess that my wife is the author
> > and we are both senders: is that right?
> 
> That was one of the things I was worrying about but didn't quite
> get straight. But I'm assuming that is the case. There are multiple
> authors/senders/delivery-people/receivers/etc.

Also if I write a letter and hand it to my son for delivery, I am the
author and he is the sender, no? Hence why it is sent from the post
office near his school, rather than the one near my home or office.


> > 4. I don't see the need for a <correspClass> distinct from the
> > existing (and already quite elaborate) text classification
> > mechanisms in the TEI header. It seems to overlap entirely with
> > the existing mechanism @class attribute on <msContents>
> 
> It seemed to be <keywords> to me.

I'm not sure about <keywords> vs msContents/@class vs <textClass>,
but I'm loathe to see yet another classification system in the TEI.
Unless the correspSIGgers have a very compelling use-case for it, I'd
prefer to fold that information into an existing mechanism.


> > 6. The place a letter is actually sent from (as witnessed by the
> > postmark, or other evidence) may be different from the place the
> > sender/s say it is sent from. (We've all written postcards to send
> > home, and forgotten to post them!). How would you handle that.
> 
> To me, different placeName elements with different @roles. (which 
> is my I prefer placeName to a specifically named element.

So perhaps
  <ct:sender evidence="internal">
    <placeName>[where I said I sent it from in the letter]</>
  </>
  <ct:sender evidence="external">
    <placeName>[where postmark says it was sent from]</>
  </>
?


> > 7. I dont think @type and @subtype are strong enough to handle
> > the full complexity of information one might want to record under
> > <ct:transmission> -- this whole area of the proposal needs more
> > elaboration I think. It might also be useful in this context to
> > look at the work of the CMC sig, as I think I mentioned before.
> 
> agreed.

+1


> > 9. Where do I record metadata about other aspects of the
> > transmission of the letter e.g. the type or design of the postage
> > stamps? the presence or absence of publicity stamps in addition
> > to the postmark proper?
> 
> Good point as well.
> 
> > Oooh, I see James has got his reactions in already, so I will pause
> > here and see if we agree on anything...
> 
> A couple things at least...