[tei-council] correspdesc musings

[Martin Holmes]

On 14-08-21 08:37 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> I thought we'd agreed that the Council would continue to discuss this
> proposal on the Council list?

The problem is that we're trying to interact with members of the SIG who 
are not on the Council list. I don't see how we can conduct this on the 
Council list if we want their input.

Something interesting is emerging, I think, from the recent discussion: 
the SIG group seem (to me) to perceive the proposed corresp stuff as a 
little island of specialized elements and attributes which is not really 
intended to be part of the larger TEI infrastructure. That would 
certainly mean that it could be clean, tight and simple -- dedicated 
elements for a few specific purposes such as <sender> and <addressee>. 
My instinct is to look for ways to generalize these requirements so that 
any new elements or attributes we create might be useful in other 
contexts, but that necessarily involves undermining that simple clarity 
(I would replace <sender> and <recipient> with a generic <participant 
role="something">, which could be useful elsewhere, but Peter (for 
instance) is opposed to this.

Cheers,
Martin

>
> 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
>>
>>
>