Can it be coincidence that a very similar question came up on a
different list an hour or two ago? There it was question of assigning
responsibility for some measurements, encoded using <dimensions>. I
quote below my response on the question, which I think is also relevant
"I'm aware that this may be a touch theological, but surely @resp (and
hence <respons>) are intended for indicating an agency, usually human,
intellectually responsible for something. If these measurements were
made by some sort of robot or other device, you might conceivably want
to indicate which one and that might (at a squeeze) be a justification
for using @resp. But the example below suggests that actually what's
going on is quite different: the measurements concerned are as cited in
some specific bibliographic source ("bibl-RIB_1995" in this case). This
doesn't mean that the source was actually responsible for doing the
measurement does it?
I think what you want here is our lovely new @source attribute,
currently available only on <quote> and <cit> but you could lobby for
its provision here too, methinks. I'd certainly be more persuadable of
that than I would be of the wisdom making <dimensions> a member of
On 31/01/13 20:27, Tomaz Erjavec wrote:
> for our biographical lexicon we would like to add information where the particular datum came from, e.g. the date or place of birth or death and many others. This source is usu. a bibliographic item (e.g. some other bio lexicon), but also things like "verified" etc.
> A couple of problems cropped up:
> I thought we'd use a taxonomy for the possible sources, and @resp to point to one of them, e.g.
> <desc xml:id="psbl">
> <bibl><title>Primorski slovenski biografski leksikon</title></bibl>
> <date resp="#psbl" when="1835-04-19"/>
> But http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.responsibility.html
> is quite firm in that @resp "is associated with a person" - so, is pointing to bibliographic items abusive? But if not @resp, how should we encode the source of the datum?
> Assuming we would use @resp, it turns out it is not defined on genName and roleName - is there any particular reason for this, or just an oversight?
> Also, it does seem to be defined on personGrp even though the Guidelines (link above) don't show this.
> Thanks for any help!