Re: [tei-council] Suggested typology for correspAction

17 Feb 2015

      None of the new elements seem to be linked to the chapter discussion yet:

http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/releas...

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?

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.

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."

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..."

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"/>

That's my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Martin

On 15-02-17 01:43 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:
...
Could we please get some feedback from the rest of the group?
Many thanks
and all the best
Peter
...
Am 11.02.2015 um 19:38 schrieb Lou Burnard :
On 11/02/15 16:28, Peter Stadler wrote:
...
Ok, further comments on this one:
1. change to valItem/desc: agreed
Good!
2. nouns vs. gerund: I still prefer the gerund. a) for asthetic reasons and b) is it more common/understandable for non-natives (This is my feeling, at least. But I wonder which German speaker knows „despatch“)
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!
...
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.
...
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)?
...
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

Re: [tei-council] Suggested typology for correspAction

Martin Holmes