You are absolutely right that there is an inconsistency between the
treatment of orgName and the other *Name elements. This is because we
have not yet revised the org* part of that chapter, however: the
intention is certainly to make it consistent with the other parts. Which
perhaps is bad news for @reg-fanciers... but is at least consistent!
Info WeGA wrote:
> please allow me to return to the problem with the
> "reg"-attribute/-element in P5 presented by Daniel Roewenstrunk and
> Peter Stadler a few days ago.
> I see the advantages of a "reg"-element in P5, but I wonder why this
> change from an attribute in P4 to an element in P5 is considered as such
> a strict and one-way-change in the case of the "person"- or
> "persName"-context but not in connection with other elements. As far as
> I see, we may further use the attribute "reg" in connection e. g. with
> the elements "country", "orgTitle", "orgName", "orgType", "org*",
> "nationality" - but not in the context of "person" or "placeName". For
> my small ears, this sounds a little inconsequent!
> We do indeed use the "key"-attribute to refer to a database which
> contains detailed personal data of those persons which are mentioned in
> our source-text. But we had until now (as many people who used P4) an
> additional "reg"-attribute in order to give the "register-entry" for a
> person in the context oft the source-text itself, an entry which may
> easily be visualized for the reader (without refering to data outside
> the TEI-file) and proved to be very helpful in daily work. In this case
> there is no necessity for tagging with additional formatting devices -
> so the attribute is absolutely sufficient for our purpose. So: why
> should we change all our files in this area? (naturally: in order to use
> the much better P5...).
> My question is: Why has the reg-attribute been so strictly eliminated? I
> think it may be more flexible for many people if we had the possibilty
> to do it in the new way of P5 (i. e. as "element") or "more
> traditionally" with the "attribute"-version. So why not including a
> "reg"-attribute (as it is further allowed for "country", "org'" etc.)?
> It is clear that it would be nonsense to use "reg"-element and attribute
> at the same time in the same context - but we have a lot of similar
> problems where you have to decide which way of encoding is the best one
> for your special purpose (without leading to a "mixed" or better:
> "confused" encoding).
> Does anyone understand our "problem" or are we the only people pleading
> for a more flexible way of dealing with the "reg"-story?
> I look forward to any help and my small ears are intensively listening
> in the e-mail-airwaves,
> sincerely yours,
> Joachim Veit
> Musikwiss. Seminar Detmold/Paderborn, Gartenstrasse 20, D-32756 Detmold