>> I think this is the point where we disagree. For me, encoding
>> represents a contract between humans about the interpretation
>> of a text AND represents a contract between humans and machines
>> about the interpretation they should share for the things they
>> have to do together : that is text interchange between humans
>> AND machines. If TEI is only for humans, I am afraid we will
>> not be able to built useful software for TEI texts.
> This is exactly my position.
We all three agree with this position; and in fact we are all three
building tools for processing TEI document. The discussion take a break
I agree that the rationale of the TEI is to adress the notion of
interchange via "machine", to create "machine readable text". But you
should agree that adressing the point of being *machine*-readable in
general is different from adressing the point of being suited for
> way. There seems to be a common view that the TEI is essentially just
> a set of guidelines and conventions, and that customization and
> flexibility should be at the heart of all TEI encoding, but
This view is based on a fact: the TEI is a format customizable and
flexible. For changing this, you do not need a new module, you need to
build a new format.
> this undermines the value of TEI as an interchange format and as an
> archive format.
I disagree. In my point of view, the value of the TEI for interchange
and archive, in the long term, is deeply coupled with the fact that it
is concerned with the general goal of being "machine-readable", and not
with the restricted goal of being usable by program x and y.
> I believe there are some areas of the schema where it's reasonable
> to ask for a degree of rigidity and consistency that might be
> inappropriate elsewhere. This is one reason why my appInfo proposal
> is a self-contained unit.
If you mean *existing* area of the schema, I agree with you: there
should be mechanisms for associating application with existing
information; if you mean *creating new* area of the schema, where are
re-expressed information existing elsewhere, I disagree.
I think it would be usefull to hear other experiences of using the TEI
[log in to unmask]
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