That said, if we can have more than one of them and envision that users might reasonably categorise them, then that would meet the test for membership of att.typed. James -- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford -----Original Message----- From: Lou Burnard [lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk] Received: Wednesday, 08 Jul 2015, 18:17 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] question on <xenoData> On 08/07/15 16:12, Martin Holmes wrote:
On 15-07-08 01:15 AM, James Cummings wrote:
I'd be interested in Syd explaining why he doesn't think 4a is a good idea? Generally I'm of the opinion that anything inside <xenoData> and its relationship to the electronic text is totally in the hands of the encoder. I think it will definitely be used for non-bibliographic metadata.
That's the key point. People will put all sorts of peripheral stuff in there (RDF ontologies, for instance) which are neither "about" the primary source document nor the electronic edition. I think if we're providing a place for people to put whatever they like, it doesn't really make sense to start constraining it.
I agree. Plus there is no guarantee that a particular tranche of xenodata is consistently "about" any one thing anyway -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived