Another possibility might be to incorporate RDF with the term or the
item element... something like this:
rdf:resource="[URI for the web service call for this particular term]">
You'd still have to decide which element to use, but RDF's "resource"
attribute seems very appropriate for what you are intending.
On 03/03/10 08:50, Michelle Dalmau wrote:
> We are in the midst of resurrecting the Victorian Women Writers Project and one of the many enhancements include topical and genre access to the texts by linking to controlled vocabularies in the textClass/keyword section of the Header. The vocabularies are part of a terminologies web service so we would like to point to the particular term maintained by the service via URI.
> As far as I can tell, I have two options:
> 1) Use @corresp in keywords/list/item
> 2) Use @target|@ref in keywords/term
> Correspondence (http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/SA.html#SACS) seems to be a flexible solution, but all the examples seem to resolve ambiguity within a document. I just want to make sure that if we use @corresp for the purposes defined above, we are not committing tag abuse.
> Intuitively the use of <term> makes sense for terminologies, but the definition of term seems to be narrowly defined as a word that requires definition (http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/CO.html#COHQU). One could make the case that using term to reference a term in a controlled vocabulary is providing some level of definition (and disambiguation in the case of @corresp), but like @corresp, the explanation and examples for <term> are not quite in line with our needed application. Then there's the question of whether to use @target or @[log in to unmask]
> To add to the confusion, the "Best Practice for TEI in Libraries," suggests the use of <term> for controlled or uncontrolled vocabularies (no mention of which attribute to use for linking to a CV web service). I co-chaired the working group who authored this document as well as contributed to the document (soon to be released!), but I can't find in the meeting notes any lengthy discussion about the use of term. Apparently those working on the header section of the document felt it was the obvious choice despite my inability to come to terms (ha!) with the Guidelines description.
> So, help!
> | Michelle Dalmau, Digital Projects & Usability Librarian
> | Indiana University Digital Library Program
> | Herman B Wells Library
> | 1320 East 10th Street, W501
> | Bloomington, Indiana 47405
> | (812) 855-1261, [log in to unmask]
> | <http://mypage.iu.edu/~mdalmau/>
Assistant Research Professor, College of Humanities
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
[log in to unmask]