[tei-council] correspdesc musings

[Lou Burnard]

I thought we'd agreed that the Council would continue to discuss this 
proposal on the Council list?

I don't mind moving it to the SIG list if that's your preference but 
it's tiresome having to look for it in two places.




On 21/08/14 16:19, Peter Stadler wrote:
> 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
>
>