On 17/02/15 16:23, Raffaele Viglianti wrote:
the use of a verbal tense to describe an *action.* But, if we went for nouns, I would (humbly, as a non-native) suggest "dispatch" instead of "despatch". It's a more common spelling, IMO (i.e. not American v British).
Not only that, but it is the form specifically recommended by the Oxford English Dictionary. I hang my head in shame.
3. authoring: We did not added a correspAction@type=‚creation‘ (or the
like) for several reasons: a) there need not be a text to send a message (e.g. I send you a bunch of flowers),
If you send someone a bunch of flowers, the "author" is presumably the florist where you bought it.
b) If there was a text (which is pretty common for TEI files ;), the authoring information should go into <author> in the <titleStmt>. c) we wanted to keep the communicative actions separated from the creative actions. That said, if others also think that this is a must-have I’m inclined to withdraw my puritan position …
I don't think it's a must-have at all. I only put it in because in the text of the chapter you explicitly refer to authorship as a correspAction, in your discussion of the @sameAs attribute. No doubt we can imagine a case where x sends a message which y has written, in part or as a whole, though.
But that would make "x" neither the author in titleStmt//author nor an actor of correspAction[@type='creation'], right? Maybe it counts as forwarding? Or, I don't know, posting/delivering? In short, Peter's argument convinces me.
My suppositious case is that if x sends a message that y has composed (think any number of silly comedies) then... - y is the author (<author>) - x is the sender (<correspAction type="sentBy">) I agree with Peter that there's no need for <correspAction type="composedBy"> but it's not entirely implausible all the same.
4. transmitting/redirecting/forwarding: „transmitting“ is supposed to be
the very physical act (i.e without consuming the message) of conveying a message from person A to person B. This is especially interesting, when the delivery is carried out by person C, a mutual friend of person A and person B (in a time period where the public post system is not that common).
so this is where we want to say that the message from x to y was actually carried by person z (rather than the post office) e.g. the Nurse or Confident who delivers the letter to the heroine in the aforementioned silly comedies? so <correspAction type="deliveredBy"> ?
„redirecting“ is meant to be a conscious act of a person C who receives the message (without being the addressee and without consuming it!) and redirects it to another location/addressee. „Forwarding“ then implies that the addressee receives and consumes the message and then forwards it to a third person.
I think I see the distinction you're making: "redirectedBy" means that the person doing it has not actually processed/read/consumed the message; whereas "forwardedBy" means they have. Is that really a useful distinction? And does it not relate more to the physical object than the act of communication? (how can someone be said to have participated in the communicative act if they didn't read the letter?)