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

Great, thank you Syd! Peter

Am 17.02.2015 um 15:35 schrieb Syd Bauman :

...

Could we please get some feedback from the rest of the group?

Sorry for delay, Peter. I expect to get to it Fri morning. -- 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

Martin, thanks for your feedback. Actually Lou had rewritten that section and attached it earlier to the other thread concerning correspDesc. I think he has not checked the revision in because he was waiting for the typology issue to be settled? When he’s done so I will try to implement your proposed changes to the examples etc. Many thanks Peter

Am 17.02.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Martin Holmes :

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

-- 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

HI Lou, On 15-02-18 06:24 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:

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"

That works for me.

...

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...

Good, let's tag the names too. Since this is the first introduction of new elements, and a large community is waiting for them, there will be a tendency to grab exactly what is in the examples and use it as-is. So I think we should do things in a consistent way in all the examples, and tag everything we believe ought to be tagged in a real use-case.

...

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!

Everything else looked great, so I have nowt else. I agree with Paul on the nouns. Cheers, Martin

I find Paul’s argument convincing that it might be hard to come up with a ‚nice‘ noun for some actions. And I like the analogy with emails (at least for ‚sent‘). So I’d be happy to trade in gerunds for past tense. Best Peter

Am 17.02.2015 um 18:25 schrieb Paul Schaffner :

On this particular set of issues, I'd agree that the gerunds sound very odd in anglophone ears, that nouns are both more consistent and more idiomatic, but that if verbal forms are needed, past participles are perhaps a better choice. Two advantages of past participles ("sent" "received") are that they correspond neatly to at least some of the usual fields of email ("sent by" "received" "delivered to" "x-resolved-to" etc.), and that they are a little easier to expand when more actions are required. Much of the (printed) correspendence that we deal with, for example, is either official or illicit; the former frequently undergoes other actions like "endorsed / endorsement" "recorded" "notarized" "authenticated" "acknowledged" "extracted [from the rolls]" etc., not all of which are happily captured as nouns; and the latter includes actions like "decoded" and "intercepted," ditto.

pfs

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015, at 04:43, 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

-- 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 Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Paul Schaffner Digital Library Production Service PFSchaffner@umich.edu | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/

-- 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

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