Bear in mind that the header is designed by analogy with a book's title
page. If it was a book, would the means of provision of image
descriptions be regarded as important enough to feature on the title
page? If so, then it should definitely feature within the
fileDescription, and respStmt (possibly with some internal mods) is the
way to do it. If not, since it is about "the means by which the source
was encoded", then it belongs in the encodingDesc. I still don't think
it belongs in the <creation> element.
Whether the resource was "born digital" or not seems irrelevant to me.
You wouldn't want this information to be in two different places on that
score alone, surely?
Dot's example suggests that we need some special tags for naming
software products e.g. <productName>, <productVersion> etc. which can
appear wherever <name> is permitted. Wouldn't you want the identifier
for the version within the name, rather than as a sibling of it though?
Dot Porter wrote:
> Peter, you're correct - the image descriptions that Martin's tool
> creates could be either completely new texts, or transcripts of
> existing texts. Does it make sense to use <respStmt> to note the
> software and <creation> to note the "newness" of the descriptions? I'm
> just not comfortable using <creation> to note the software.
> <resp>encoded using</resp>
> <name>Image Markup Tool</name>
> <resp>encoded by</resp>
> <name>Dot Porter</name>
> and, if the image descriptions are new:
> Image descriptions by Dot Porter.
> On 5/25/06, Peter Boot <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Dot Porter wrote:
>>>Martin, I agree with Lou; from the description in the guidelines it
>>>looks like <creation> is specifically to describe the source text.
>>If I remember rightly, the TEI text that Martin's tool creates is not
>>(necessarily) the transcription of an old text. It might as well be a
>>new, editorial text about an image fragment. The editor, using the tool,
>>creates a new text. It would seem to me therefore that the creation
>>element is appropriate.