If you're using <p> or <ab> you are ipso facto not structuring your data. So you can't. If you're lucky enough to have a richer <person> around, then you probably don't want to dumb down to Simple anyway. Or you will have to do the same sort of conversion as you do when formatting your <person> for display etc. Sorry, silk purses don' make very good sow's ears. On 21/07/16 19:34, James Cummings wrote:
I'm favourably inclined to this proposal. How would you recommend, inside that <ab> that one does structured data (e.g. converting from a richer <person> with <birth> <death> <event> <state> etc.)? I'm not saying one can't do it, but we should recommend if you had a <person> with a <state> or <occupation> or similar inside it, this is what you should do in Simple.
-James
On 16/07/16 17:17, Lou Burnard wrote:
Another and much easier proposal : Simple only allows you to put <p> (or <ab>) inside your <person>, <place>, <org> elements. That way you can include <name> if you want, and add as much additional waffle as you like.
On 16/07/16 17:56, Lou Burnard wrote:
On 16/07/16 15:32, James Cummings wrote:
1. Do we REALLY want to include event, state, note as well as name ? I would have thought just name and note was enough. Otherwise, we need to explain when you use note, when event, and when state.
I would have agreed if note was datable (which, to be honest, I can see an argument for...).
The trouble is that if NOTE were datable, I'd assume that the dating related to the act of annotation, not the content. Or at the very least that it was ambiguous. A note might well contain a whole lot of chronologically distinct matters. By and large datable things are events and states, not discussions of same.
To me these are very different semantic categories. Naming of something, recording something happened, and recording its state, with notes for anything else. I could see an argument that we don't need event and state.
That (not going the extra mile to include event and state) was indeed my proposal. I agree that it's useful to record a name distinctly for a thing, but I am proposing that in Simple all we allow is for a bunch of notes. Of course those could be typed to distinguish ones about states from ones about events, if you like.
(If you accept that <state type="birth" when="1955"/> makes sense.)
Err, no it doesn't. With the possible exception of elephants, birth is not a state but an event.
2. The current doc for Simple mentions only @when @calendar and @period of the datable attributes. Do we REALLY want @notBefore and @notAfter and @from and @to as well?
Interestingly, I would have got rid of @calendar and @period -- one can document in prose in the header that one is using the Julian or Mayan calendar... if you are using multiple ones in a single document then your encoding needs aren't 'Simple' in my mind. I would have said @when, @notBefore/@notAfter. Where things need @from/@to I'd probably had done something else.
OK, happy to remove calendar and add notb4 and notAfter if that works better. @period is useful so you can say e.g. <date period="2ndEmpire"> when you dont want to be any more precise.
On name vs persName etc. see the comment I am about to add to the ticket.