Changes and example seem reasonable to me. -James On 03/12/16 16:28, Lou Burnard wrote:
Sorry, took longer than expected. All checked in now though.
On 03/12/16 13:59, James Cummings wrote:
I think you and I agreed in that discussion. (And remember that I'm not entirely comfortable with @source being global... I was just out-voted.)
I'll have a look this late-afternoon then.
-J
On 03/12/16 13:53, Lou Burnard wrote:
Well, let's not reprise the discussion about whether to use <ref> or <bibl> or <bibl> containing <ref> ...
I'll check in my rewrite after lunch and you can then correct that!
On 03/12/16 13:51, James Cummings wrote:
I disagree. @facs is for pointing to image facsimiles of something (like a page). @source (if I understand correctly) is for pointing to the source of the content. In a digital world that may be a digital edition, text, or something that can be identified with a URI. If I am quoting a digital edition, I would expect to be able to point to that edition (and better inside it). I've tried to phrase it so vaguely because @source is also used on schemaSpec and other ODD components.
I'm happy for it to be rephrased however... just want to make sure it is understood why it is so vague. ;-)
-james
On 03/12/16 13:46, Lou Burnard wrote:
"the attribute will contain a pointer to a digital surrogate of that source or a description of it,"
I don't think you can use @source to point to a "digital surrogate" can you? That's @facs in my book.
-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford