On 09/07/15 17:04, Martin Holmes wrote:
We already have four completely different @scope attributes; please let's not add a fifth
Well, I am not so sure these four are all semantically "completely different" -- they all say something about the extent to which the annotation concerned is universally (or not) applicable. Which is more or less what we want here, surley? But by all means let's have anothjer suggestion.
How about adding <xenoData> to att.pointing? Then it can be linked very precisely to the location(s) in the rest of the file to which the metadata applies. This could be done with e.g. @corresp, but we know that causes discomfort in some folks.
Aaaargh. Whence this spurious desire for "precise linking"? This is xenodata. It could be anything. We cannot say anything about what it applies to and shouldnt pretend to be able to.
Cheers, Martin
Boos, Lou
On 15-07-09 08:29 AM, James Cummings wrote:
I could be convinced of those two attributes.
But yes, I wouldn't provide suggested values at all.
-James
On 09/07/15 14:26, Lou Burnard wrote:
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.