Peter Boot wrote:
> Dot Porter wrote:
> > Does it make sense to use <respStmt> to note the
> > software and <creation> to note the "newness" of the descriptions?
> Dot, another problem that I'd have with the respStmt solution (besides
> it supposedly referring to a person rather than a program) is that the
> definion mentions 'responsible for the intellectual content', which is
> not really what the markup tool is responsible for.
Well that is indeed the question I asked initially -- if you don't think
the output of the tool is to be considered as "intellectual content"
then it certainly doesn't deserve a mention in the <creation> element.
I am more and more inclined to say that it belongs in the
encodingDescription. It seems much more analogous to such things as
<segmentation> and other children of <editorialDecl>. My recommendation
would be to define a new element <software> with whatever child elements
you think needed, and make it a member of the model.editorialDeclPart class.
> As I said earlier, I feel this is important enough for an element of its
> own. Why couldn't we have a <toolStmt>, on a par with <respStmt>? I'm
> sure there'll be more tools that generate TEI texts. But if it should be
> vanilla TEI, for the moment I'd prefer <creation>.
It depends what you mean by "on a par with" -- respStmt is for recording
"intellectual responsibility", as you note above. So what responsibility
does "toolStmt" record? However, as I've indicated I'm in favour of a
new element rather than attempting to overload the semantics of an old one.