On 17/02/15 16:33, Martin Holmes wrote:
None of the new elements seem to be linked to the chapter discussion yet:
http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/releas...
As Peter notes, I haven't checked the tagdocs in yet. Will do so shortly.
This sentence reads a little oddly to me:
"This information is intended to complement the description of the objects recording correspondence activities (such as letters), typically provided by the sourceDesc element."
I think "the" before "objects" should go. I'm also not sure about "objects recording correspondence activities"; letters, surely, don't "record" correspondence activities, they embody them, don't they?
Well, maybe. How about "This information is complementary to the detailed descriptions of physical objects (such as letters) associated with correspondence activities, which are typically provided by the sourceDesc element"
I'm slightly uneasy at seeing dates so carefully transcribed, but not encoded, in this example:
<correspContext> <ref type="replyTo" target="#CLF0102">Previous letter of Chamisso to de La Foye: 16 January 1807</ref> <ref type="replyFrom" target="#CLF0104">Next letter of Chamisso to de La Foye: 07 May 1810</ref> </correspContext>
Were dating elements left out for simplicity? A date in the next example is encoded, so these look a bit naked by comparison. It could be said they're redundant because these are pointers to other documents which will contain full dating information, but in that case they're redundant as text too, I would think.
No problem to tag the dates, but why stop there? The names could also be tagged...
The first instance of the word "at" should be "on" here:
"The following basic example uses correspAction to describe the sending of a letter by Adelbert von Chamisso from Vertus at 29 January 1807 to Louis de La Foye at Caen."
Fixed. Also added a sentence about the use of @when.
I would suggest deleting the first "often" here, because of the repetition:
"The same person may often be associated with many actions. For example, it will often be the case that the author and sender of a message are identical..."
OK
In the last example, there are <date> elements, but they have no attributes; it seems to me better practice to do this:
<date when="1932-12-17">17 December 1932</date>
rather than this:
<date>17 December 1932</date>
and perhaps, since this is metadata anyway, even this:
<date when="1932-12-17"/>
Yes, in fact I think that should be the preferred form, since (in principle) the date in "long" form is not actiually being transcribed from anywhere.
That's my 2 cents.
Not enough!
Cheers, Martin