I think you are misunderstanding the way the consensus is emerging.
You *can* link your references to the things-they-refer-to, and
standardising a way of doing that is a distinct step forward in what TEI
offers. What we are talking about here is how you describe the reference
In earlier versions of TEI (specifically the P4 version of the ND
module), there was a vagueness about whether you could use e.g.
<placeName> and <persName> to contain ways of referring to places and
people which were not actually names. The consensus now emerging seems
to be, quite clearly, that you should not. You wouldn't say
<persName>her husband</persName>, so why should you say <placeName>three
miles from here</placeName>? In both cases, these should be <rs>s. And
the great step forward is that we can in any case resolve the intended
referent by means of @key and @ref, since these attributes are available
on <rs> as well.
In answer to my esteemed colleague's concern that this does "make it
mildly harder to analyze the text", I can only reiterate that TEI
policy, imffho, is always to prefer Truth above Expediency.
Richard Light wrote:
> 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