On 11-08-25 09:02 AM, Julia Flanders 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?
This is a really important point. For me, the vocabulary is key, and the
constraints are often annoyingly restrictive -- why can't element X
appear inside element Y, when my document has obvious instances of
feature X inside feature Y?
For instance, why can't I have this?
Here, I'm trying to use the vocabulary accurately to describe what
appears in my document (a heading after a paragraph), but the "grammar"
constraints are frustrating me, and I begin to wonder why they exist at
all. But there are strong feelings in the community about how documents
are expected to be structured, and many would, I'm sure, tell me that my
document _can't_ actually be like that; a <head> after a <p> must imply
a new <div>.
> 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
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])