Quoting James Cummings <[log in to unmask]>:
> In message <[log in to unmask]>
> Bruce Robertson <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> > So I can't find freestanding 'event' element, as listed in the
> > documentation. In case that schema was out of date, I built a fresh
> > today from Roma, and grepping it led me to the same conclusion.
> Coincidentally Dot Porter recently submitted a TEI Feature Request on
> the sourceforge site. See
> So I'm sure that this ticket will benefit from any discussion of it
> I think the original intention was that events tend to only happen in
> places (Battle of Waterloo), or to people (Marriage). However, I think
> it entirely possible and reasonable to want to mark up a list of events
> by themselves. Just as one might have a gazetteer of places, which is a
> use-case for the standalone listPlace element, a gazetteer or calendar
> of historical events seems equally reasonable on first glance to me.
> I'll be interested to hear alternative views about why we shouldn't have
> such an element though.
Thanks, James, for your prompt and helpful reply. My first concern, of
course, was that I was looking at this sideways. (Incidentally, does
anyone know of a schema visualization tool that allows one to inspect
what the possible parent elements of a given element might be? My
students might have found this information useful if it were given on
the P5 documentation site, since they could easily find a pertinent
element, but sometimes could not easily tell what enclosing elements
were required to produce a valid document.)
Setting aside the discussion of non-bound events, perhaps for now the
documentation should be emended so as not to suggest that a
freestanding <event> is possible.
I do have another couple of questions about using the P5 event tags as
historical markup, though. One of the two places that <event>s can be
subordinated to <persons> is in the header, under <particDesc>. This
is rather narrowly defined thus: "describes the identifiable speakers,
voices, or other participants in a linguistic interaction." Now, if
the text were an historical narrative whose events we wished to
encode, this definition of participant wouldn't necessarily fly.
Imagine a third-party description of, oh, say, the Acadian Expulsion.
There may well be no 'linguistic interaction' involved, just bald
statements about people doing things, or more likely having things
done to them. So either this documentation derives from a time when
<particDesc> had a more narrow purpose, or I mustn't use the
<particDesc> for general historical information like the example
Second, it seems to me that the other place I can put my historical
persons is in a <listPerson> or <listPlace> element. These may appear
throughout the document, not just in the header (again, if I'm reading
the rng correctly). Now, they are defined much more along the lines of
what I had in mind: e.g., "contains a list of descriptions, each of
which provides information about an identifiable person or a group of
people, for example the participants in a language interaction, or the
people referred to in a historical source." However, it seems to me
unusual that if I should wish to introduce a <person> in the middle of
the document, I would be obliged to wrap him or her in a <listPerson>
element, and same with the <place>.
I hope this doesn't come across as nit-picking. I just really want to
get this right because while my students are working on the markup,
I'm working on XSLT to produce Heml/RDF representation of the events,
persons, etc., in order to blend this material with related data in
CIDOC-CRM. So I want the XSLT to cover all eventualities, and I want
the documents to be models of clarity.
Dept. of Classics, Mount Allison University