My view on this is, as usual, well it all depends what you're trying to
do. If you're creating a strict digital transcript of a primary source,
then clearly any prosopographical analysis aren't part of it, and hence
belong in the header. If on the other hand you're creating a digital
resource which combines source text with prosopographic/genealogic
analyses, I see no reason why you shouldn't put the latter into a the
body (or back matter) of said resource.
Maybe a good analogy is with a bibliography (a prosopography is like a
bibliography, after all): you would put a bibliographic record
describing the source of an encoded text into the header of that text.
But a bibliography of articles cited in that text goes into a <listBibl>
at the back.
I envisage a <listPerson> which can appear anywhere a <listBibl> can,
and the ability to reference <person> elements within it via a key
Does this help?
Viv Cothey wrote:
> Hello to all,
> Apologies for resurrecting this; and I may have got hold of the wrong
> end of the stick anyway.
> I am currently doing the technical side of a project to encode examples
> of a census enumerator's books from the 1841 and 1851 census. I am using
> TEI-Lite to encode the source text which is available on microfilm and
> is well known to family historians. The project is basically to see if
> it can be done.
> The interesting bit is the next step which is to do a prosopographic and
> then a genealogical analysis of the encoded text leading to record
> My enquiry is this. Do the prosopographically relevant tags have to go
> in the teiHeader. This seems to be the approach in the MASTER project
> and as described in the guidelines. However the effect is a document
> that is all header and no text.
> In general, when representing genealogical information, it will probably
> make more sense to have prosopographic type markup closeby any text to
> which it corresponds.
> Viv Cothey