In message <[log in to unmask]>, Sebastian Rahtz
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Lou Burnard wrote:
>> but for ones which don't, it seems much more useful to say
>> <rs type="/type of entity referred to/"> as Oyvind suggests than to
>>do what @type ought to mean, namely
>> <rs type="/type of reference/"> (with values such as "short",
>>"elliptical", "periphrastic", "cataphoric" etc.)
>> This is an old argument (which I lost last time we had it) ... since
>>we do now permit <name type="/type of thing named/"> it seems only
>>logical to extend the confusion to rs as well.
>ah, _that_ discussion.... how it all comes flooding back.
>so in practice we do all agree that Gabriel should use
><rs ref=""> instead of <placeName ref="">, which will
>just make it mildly harder to analyze the text, but be
>closer to correct
Just to cheer everyone up on a grey Monday morning, I'm going to
disagree with all of this.
While the logic of the above responses may be impeccable, it does beg
the broader question of what we are trying to do with our TEI markup.
As I see it, in P5 we have developed the Names and Dates module in two
different directions. On the one hand, we have added to our ability to
focus on the "name-ness" of names, e.g. by introducing <nym> and its
friends. On the other, we have added a whole battery of elements to
describe people, places in their own right (<person>, <place>, etc.).
The emerging consensus, as I understand it, is to say that we can't
validly link out from a reference to a person within a text to our
carefully constructed external biographical authority files, simply
because that reference is anaphorical. In other words, "name-ness"
trumps "referring-ness". This strikes me as a distressing step
backwards into a narrow linguistic interpretation of what TEI is all