Den 25. aug. 2011 00:14, skrev Wendell Piez:
> Dear Sebastian,
> On 8/23/2011 6:37 PM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2011, at 23:22, Wendell Piez wrote:
>>> a way I expect it to be processed. But presumably the TEI
>>> Consortium could refuse me the use of namespace
>>> "http://tei-c.org/ns/experimental/wendell2011a" until I
>>> demonstrated the utility and suitability of my nifty new tag set
>>> for others (maybe meeting a two-implementation requirement?),
>>> documented it to its standards with worked examples, and offered a
>>> dumbing-down transformation into 80% TEI to accommodate anyone who
>>> didn't want to support the tagging natively.
>> I think there is a lot of merit in the development of best practice
>> in this area; I think the respectable projects which seriously
>> customize the TEI do exactly this already.
> Hm. This may be true, but I am troubled by your characterization of
> those who don't make the grade here as not "respectable". There may be
> reasons why a project doesn't do this apart from moral lapses. Maybe
> they don't have the resources. Maybe they don't have the know-how, or
> not yet. Maybe they have other priorities that intervene.
> I think the larger question faced by the Council (and possibly the
> Board) is whether this status quo is good enough. It is (I think)
> apparent that:
> * "Blind interchange" at present, or even something more like it, is
> hindered by the permissiveness and size of the current TEI-all tag set
> (all the 550-odd elements in the http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0 namespace).
> Mind you, I am not saying it would be easy in any case. But I don't
> think things have to be as difficult as they are in TEI, either.
> * Stress is felt on both sides, both by parties who want to use TEI but
> can't do so effectively out of the box because it offers too much, and
> by those to whom it gives too little (because 550-odd elements is a
> small constellation within the galaxies of possible encodings, even
> reasonable ones of interest within the domain of the TEI).
Some of the problems perceived by Henrik Ibsen's Writings are not that
there are too few elements (although we have invented a small amount)
but that the content models do not fit the way we are modeling our
texts. And this is where we may have thought wrongly: we have decided as
part of our upgrade to P5 that if we change an element's content model
apart from attributes, then we define a new element in our own namespace
to keep clear what is unchanged TEI and what is not. So in our texts in
addition to the standard TEI P5 elements we have new elements:
<HIS:printer> and edited versions of TEI-elements such as <HIS:hisAdd>,
the last one an extension of the tei <add> element. And so on.
But should I now read the discussion here as meaning that we should
rather have edited the TEI-elements and kept them in the TEI namespace?
We are prepared to handle over both our encoded texts, our schema and
our ODD-file for that matter, and also the Roma-generated documentation
of our schema. But we have not planned for - meaning we have no money or
person-time - work to define a way to emasculate our text files to an
80% version in pure TEI. So we obviously have other priorities, Does
this mean that we are not one of the respectable projects? However that
may be, Henrik Ibsen will be published on the web on Sept. 17 this year.
University of Oslo