I think that's a fascinating question. It must be a little of both, yes?
Sometimes the TEI's grammatical functioning seems to be wiser than I am as
an editor--it makes me think about what I'm really designating as "X"
because "Xs" don't usually go inside "Ys." And when that structure is
really irritating is when I'm trying to use TEI for something that it really
wasn't designed for coding (page layout, e.g.). On the other hand, the
ease with which TEI of all sorts can be mapped onto NINES rdf is always a
joy to me: virtually everything else seems hard by comparison. And that's a
matter of semantics (I think).
What do you make of the difference, in terms of the interoperability
On 8/25/11 11:02 AM, "Julia Flanders" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This may be a really silly question, or a silly way of approaching the
> topic, but as long as we're thinking things over I would like to get
> the thoughts of the group on this:
> To what extent does the TEI's successful functioning as an interchange
> language depend on its vocabulary and the way it associates semantics
> with specific terms, and to what extent does it depend on the specific
> structures (i.e. where elements can go and what they can contain) that
> are specified in the TEI schema?
> In using the phrase "successful functioning" I don't mean to set aside
> the debate about whether it *does* function successfully as an
> interchange language--I'm really curious as to whether vocabulary or
> grammar is really the key to whatever success we do attribute to, or
> seek from, the TEI.
> It seems to me that the answer to this question might affect how we
> approach the problem of consistency and constraint. But I may be wrong
> about this and I'd be glad to know more about it than I do.
> best, Julia