Re: [tei-council] Suggested typology for correspAction

Hello, just a few comments on this specific issue for now. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:

Well, I am not convinced that we should deliberately produce non-idiomatic language because of assumptions about what may be more usual amongst (some) not-native speakers. But I am happy to revert to gerunds if that's what council recommends. And (as I said before) I can sympathise with a preference not to invalidate all your existing data!

I also have a slight preference for nouns, though I can certainly accept

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).

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), 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.

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). „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.

This notion of "consuming" a message is a bit strange. Usually it's the dog which eats letters! I assume you mean something like "reading" or "receiving" the message (as distinct from simply receiving the object which carries the message)?

It sounds a bit like a robot dealing with the letter rather than a human :) but I struggle to come up with an alternative that is general enough to cover both textual and non-textual messages. Maybe "acknowledge(ment)"...? Raff

...

Does that make sense? Best Peter

Am 09.02.2015 um 17:50 schrieb Lou Burnard

...

...

:

I'd like to propose some change to this. Firstly I find the current descriptions of the various valItems a bit cumbersome and non-idiomatic. e.g. "identifies a/the sending action of the message" The use of "a/the" for "a or the" is not something we do elsewhere, nor do I think it necessary here. It's not obvious what "the sending action of the message" means either -- the message is not carrying out the sending! The description should explain what this value of the @type attribute implies, and therefore in what circumstances it should be chosen. I suggest something like "information concerning the creation or authorship of a message".

I'd prefer to see the suggested values as nouns rather than gerunds, as elsewhere. So "despatch" rather than "sending", "receipt" rather than "receiving". (But I appreciate that this may cause some upsets in existing data)

I would like to see a suggestion for the "authoring" correspAction, since the text does talk about this (when introducing use of @sameAs)

The distinction between "receiving" and "transmitting" needs to be clarified. I would say the same for the distinction between "redirecting" and "forwarding", except that I am not sure that I know what the distinction is in that case.

So, my revised valList for correspAction/@type looks like this:

<valList type="semi" mode="add"> <valItem ident="creation"> <desc versionDate="2015-02-09" xml:lang="en"> information concerning the creation or authorship of a message</desc> </valItem> <valItem ident="despatch"><!-- was sending --> <desc versionDate="2015-02-09" xml:lang="en"> information concerning the sending or despatch of a message</desc> </valItem> <valItem ident="receipt"><!-- was receiving --> <desc versionDate="2015-02-09" xml:lang="en"> information concerning the receipt of a message</desc> </valItem> <valItem ident="transmission"> <!-- was transmitting --> <desc versionDate="2015-02-09" xml:lang="en"> information concerning the transmission of a message after it has been despatched</desc> </valItem> <valItem ident="redirection"> <!-- was redirecting --> <desc versionDate="2015-02-09" xml:lang="en"> information concerning the redirection or forwarding of a message </desc> </valItem> </valList>

-- 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