> Forgive me if I am on the wrong track here or if the answer to my question
is already well documented, my understanding from listening in recently is
that TEI is moving towards a modular structure of various types of texts that
share a a kind-of conceptual relationship to the TEI documentary form. I have
been visualising this as series of schematic extensions to a TEI core where
each module corresponds to a particular type of text (is this correct?).
Not 100%. Firstly, the TEI is already modular. What is proposed
is a normalisation of that, to remove the distinction between
"bases" and "toppings", leaving only "modules". Secondly, the modules
don't really correspond to types of text so much as types of content.
Often they overlap, ie "dictionaries", but sometimes not, ie "figures and
> Has a graphical representation of the proposed or already developed modules
and their relations been developed as yet (e.g. class diagram, entity
relation diagram, other heirarchical (?) models) ?
no, but its a good idea. currently the TEI editors
are tasked with writing down a fairly detailed workplan,
and the diagram you suggest could usefully come of that.
one more thing - the number, granularity, nameing, content, etc
of modules are all potentially open to change. for instance, the
current figures/tables/formulae one might be split up,
bits of corpus might move to namesdates, etc. Any or all
suggestions about this are very welcome.
Oxford University Computing Services
& JISC Open Source Advisory Service