Please please let's not use @type for this ! How about @scheme (for the format of the metadata) and @scope (for its err scope, i.e. what it's about) if you insist on saying anything about either? I also think that any typology of closed values we might propose will just look silly. On 09/07/15 03:22, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
I was just about to write to the list with the same concern about using @type.
As for the value of the attribute (whatever name you choose) ... While "source" is well established in the Guidelines for the thing described by <sourceDesc>, "transcription" is not generally used for the thing described by the other children of <fileDesc>. After all, the Guidelines claim to be equally applicable not only to a manual transcription of a written or audio document but also to an electronic text created through automated means, even from another electronic source. So "electronic text" is often used, as are "computer file", "electronic file", and "electronic work". So maybe the suggested value of the attribute could be one of the following:
electronicText computerFile electronicFile electronicWork
--Kevin
On 7/8/15 9:17 PM, Syd Bauman wrote:
But just to be explicit about this, we are (deliberately) making the same mistake TEI made with @type of <name> and friends: the value of @type here does not describe the type of the element itself or the stuff inside the element, but rather categorizes the type of stuff that the elements inside refer to or describe. (That's why I liked @descirbes better, but if <xenoData> is going to be used for so much more than describing the source and describing the TEI file, that may not be a good idea.)
I'm convinced. I'll put it into att.typed and give it a private copy of @type with a suggested values include list of "source" and "transcription" (anyone come up with a better term?) and let Martin or anyone else add whatever others seem appropriate.
People can then poke at that.