[tei-council] correspdesc musings

[Peter Stadler]

I’m trying to merge the discussion about the correspDesc proposal on the correspondence SIG list to get more people involved. Please have a look at
https://listserv.brown.edu/?A0=TEI-CORRESP-SIG for current messages.

Best
Peter


Am 03.08.2014 um 20:26 schrieb Syd Bauman <syd at paramedic.wwp.northeastern.edu>:

> 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...
> -- 
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/pipermail/tei-council/attachments/20140821/4a4e147d/attachment.bin