The distinction between putting things in the <sourceDesc> and putting
them in the <body> is however quite significant.
In the latter case, you are saying that this information forms part of
the object being encoded; in the former, it does not. If this seems an
unimportant distinction consider the case where you are encoding a
19thc. source that includes its own printed "index nominarum" or
suchlike as an appendix. If your objective is to reproduce this source,
your (presumably) updated and much improved personography clearly
belongs in the header, not in the back -- especially since it would then
overlap with the existing index. If your objective however is to make
something new -- a prosopography for the people referenced in this (and
maybe other sources -- then that listPerson belongs in the body of the
encoded document, and the description of the source belongs in
It's just like <msDesc>s isn't it?
On 16/08/11 17:35, James Cummings wrote:
> On 16/08/11 17:18, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>> This sounds reasonable. (Although the way EpiDoc editions are usually
>> conceived the<body> contains more than just the text being
>> transcribed/edited, it also contains many other elements of the edition
>> being created of it: translation, commentary, etc. We actually don't
>> have much use for tei:front or tei:back, usually, so I'd be happy enough
>> to use<back> for digital appendices as James suggests.)
>> Where in sourceDesc do you put these lists? In a free<p> or somewhere
>> more structured?
> Just as a<listPerson> <listPlace> <listOrg> etc. inside the
>> And if you put these lists in an external document--which I can well
>> imagine doing too, at least 90% of the time--where in said (TEI)
>> document do you put them? SourceDesc? Body?
> I would put them in the<body>, but often for loosely connected
> external appendices of this kind I just have them be a
> <listPerson> or similar as the root element. (Creating an
> ODD/schema to validate a fragmentary document is child's play.)
> However, having the full header to record things like
> <revisionDesc> and their own<sourceDesc> is useful. But these
> kinds of things are done mostly for pragmatic reasons and if I
> were creating a text to circulate all compiled into a single
> document I'd probably go back to embedding them in<sourceDesc>.
> But getting used to using more resources in a basic stand-off
> fashion is something we should all certainly be doing.