Re: [tei-council] xenodata/@scope

I agree with Hugh that the current spec is prematurely precise. Maybe removing the <valList> and substituting a more vague <desc> such as "may be used to characterise the scope of the associated xenodata, for example as relating to the source of the document, or to the document itself, or some other topic." would be a reasonable step forward in our current state of ignorance? On 06/10/15 17:02, Hugh Cayless wrote:

I'm not sure what it's useful for though. If I understand it, @scope="source" means the xenodata is about the thing the <sourceDesc> is about; "transcription" means it's about the TEI document, which I suppose includes the xenodata itself, so that's nice and recursive. I also think "transcription" is too specific a term.

I do think users will want to have ways to characterize the contents of <xenodata>, but @scope is just sort of a guess at what they might need. We'd be better off finding out what those needs are before committing to a solution.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:

...

I'm in two minds about this. As it is, I think @source is useful and the absence of some such mechanism will be a serious deficiency for <xenoData>. On the other hand, I'd like to avoid releasing something which we later wish to revoke because we come up with something better.

As far as Hugh's examples go:

1) I generated my TEI (particularly its metadata/header) from another

...

source, and I want to capture that source.

Ignoring the parenthetical bit, surely this is @scope="source"?

2) I have related data in

...

another format, maybe GeoJSON for mentioned places, or MODS records for my bibliography that I want to embed.

@source="other", no? Or, alternatively, you might be arguing that <listBibl>, <listPlace> and <listPerson> belong in att.declaring, so you can point from them to your <xenoData>. If so, that's not a problem with <xenoData> or @source.

Are we worried that the set of suggested values for @scope is too weak? If so, they're only suggested, and the list can be expanded later. Are we, on the other hand, worried that this attribute (combined with @type and @subtype, and the declaring infrastructure) is still insufficient, and something else is needed?

Cheers, Martin

On 15-10-06 08:12 AM, Fabio Ciotti wrote:

...

I have some doubts as well, in a past mail exchange about <xeno> I suggested some similar use cases advocating for a more granular way to associate a metadata set with part of the TEI doc. My position is that we should discuss this with more deeply at the f2f, and abstain from including this att in the release, for the moment.

f

2015-10-06 16:43 GMT+02:00 Hugh Cayless :

I wanted to ask, before it’s too late, whether we’re all happy with

...

@scope on <xenodata>. I’m not very fond of it, to be honest. I might use xenodata in the following scenarios:

1) I generated my TEI (particularly its metadata/header) from another source, and I want to capture that source. 2) I have related data in another format, maybe GeoJSON for mentioned places, or MODS records for my bibliography that I want to embed.

In nether case would @scope really help me...I was under the impression that we were going to defer categorizing xenodata until we had requests from people using it.

What do we think?

-- 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

-- 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