[tei-council] correspdesc musings

[Lou Burnard]

I am not so sure the SIG list is larger than the Council list, but if 
that's what you want, you should probably remind Council members that 
they need to register for the SIG list (which seems like quite a 
tortuous process) if they want to use it.

I have some comments on your last posting on the SIG list but I cannot 
post them till you approve my subscription,




On 21/08/14 16:40, Peter Stadler wrote:
> Yes. Because it’s nasty to look at two places I was trying to move it to one place. And I was hoping to get a wider audience on the SIG list …
> Sorry if I missed some Council decision here?!
>
> Am 21.08.2014 um 17:37 schrieb Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>
>