LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  March 2007

TEI-L March 2007

Subject:

Re: recording application information in the tei Header - would you use it?

From:

Sylvain Loiseau <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sylvain Loiseau <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:11:04 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (143 lines)

> One issue which I think is really important is getting a little lost 
> in  the discussion here: whatever solution we choose, it must be  
> formally-structured enough so that any application can find out about 
>  any other application.

I'm not convinced. We could perhaps distinguish two goals:

- inventoriate all the pieces of information an application may need 
and elaborate a standard way of representing this information;
- providing to applications a general mechanism they can use to define 
the information they need and how they want the user to express it.

The goal of creating an inventory of the applications needs, and an 
standardized way for expressing them, seems to me far too complex. It 
redefine the goal of the TEI, which was (if I understand correctly) to 
identify the feature of a text, not the goals and needs of all 
application dealing with it :

    The goals of the TEI project initially had a dual focus:    being 
concerned with both what textual features should be    encoded (i.e. 
made explicit) in an electronic text, and    how that encoding should 
be represented for loss-free,    platform-independent, interchange.    
<http://www.tei-c.org.uk/Vault/SC/J31/WHAT.htm>

Furthermore, I don't see why it is important that an application can 
understand the parameters used by another application. By definition, 
an application is a black box -- at least from the point of view of 
another application :-). Information common to several applications 
should be, by definition, in the standard existing TEI markup, which is 
precisly define for this very usage: express in a machine readable form 
information not specific to an application. On the other hand, a 
mechanism for expressing application' parameters should be precisly 
used, in my point of view, for expressing thinks that the application 
is the only concerned with.

> There are indeed lots of approaches which could  be taken by any 
> application author using existing tags and attributes,  but there is 
> no clear expectation that this information should be  recorded in a 
> particular way -- nothing recommended in the guidelines,  and no 
> established practice we can draw on. The TEI often works in this  
> way, which is why we hear complaints that automatic parsing systems 
> can  never find information they need reliably in the TEI header -- 
> there's  no guarantee which of a multitude of possible approaches 
> might have been  taken in any particular case.

> When we come to authoring applications, this flexibility is problematic;

yes, this is perfectly clear and often pointed out. But this 
flexibility is also the very feature of the TEI.

There is an alternative between:

- redefine entirely the header (and the whole TEI) to express more 
formaly and predictabily (?) this information (which is both useless 
and impossible in my point of view), or
- allow application to use their own strategy, *in a standardised way*, 
for identifying information in the header.

I think the standardisation can only be at the level of the vocabulary 
used for expressing parameters, not in the parameters themself.

This allows fine coupling between application and existing markup. For 
instance the "last save" information may be stored in the existing way 
(an item in revisionDesc), but with an IDREF toward a registered 
application on the "change" element created/used by this application.

> my application does need to be able to find information about other  
> applications which have touched the file,

So, it may be the reponsibility of your application to know the usage 
of other application, not the responsability of the TEI to provide you 
this information.

> predictable way. If all application authors create their own feature  
> structures, it's going to be difficult to decode the information they 
>  record.

You will have to have an individual knowledge of application. I'm not 
sure it is less difficult for the TEI to deal with the burden of 
creating a robust, scalable, generalised, effective and standardised 
vocabulary for application.

> to this particular approach; what I AM insistent about, though, is 
> that  whatever approach is chosen, it will only be useful if it's 
> absolutely  predictable.

Yes, but there is two possible meanings: make the encoding of your 
application predictable to your application, and make the encoding of 
every application predictable to every application.

> It may be that all we need is a new section of the  guidelines, 
> laying down, in a fairly rigid form, what authoring  applications are 
> expected to do when recording information about  themselves in the 
> header,

But applications may potentially do absolutly everything and need 
absolutely all information provided in human-oriented fashion in the 
document, since it define the content of the document. So, should we 
redefine all the information contains in the TEI vocabulary in a more 
formal way?

> My app "declares an interest" in two or three elements in the file  
> (identified by xml:id).

Other application may be coupled with all the numerous occurrence of a 
given element, so the pointer mechanism will be pointless.

> variability in its encoding structures. Authoring apps that emerge 
> for  TEI, where they are not simply XML editors such as oXygen, are 
> most  likely to be specific to particular types of content or areas 
> of the  file -- a teiHeader editor, an image tool, or a bibliography 
> program.
> More than one tool may be used to work on any particular file,

I agree with all this view.

> and there really has to be a mechanism by which they can avoid 
> treading on each other's toes,

I thinks it's difficult to make the encoding perfectly predictable at 
the same time for every application possibly editing the document.

> So while it's true to say that applications can already make use of  
> existing elements to store a lot of this information, that's not the  
> point; we need a common system that all applications can depend on.

The point is to be "common" or not to be "common" I think.

-- 
Sylvain Loiseau
[log in to unmask]
http://www.limsi.fr/~sloiseau

On peut pratiquer objectivement, c'est-à-dire impartialement,
une recherche dont l'objet ne peut être conçu et construit
sans rapport à une qualification positive et négative, dont
l'objet n'est donc pas tant un fait qu'une valeur.

Canguilhem, /Le normal et le pathologique/, p. 157

----------------------------------------------------------------
Ce message a ete envoye par IMP, grace a l'Universite Paris 10 Nanterre

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager