I would definitely try to keep some coherence in annotating refering markables (in the sense of the Mate project http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00525171) whether concrete or abstract. <rs> is intended to this purpose and appropriate. So, yes.
Le 15 janv. 2013 à 11:46, Andreas Triantafillidis a écrit :
> hi and thanks
> we will use <rs> (with @type and @subtype) for "objects"
> Is it ok to use the same for "abstract objects" as well (ie "topic", etc.)?
> On 13 Ιαν 2013, at 12:01 AM, Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 12/01/13 21:47, Syd Bauman wrote:
>>>> The simplest approach might be to use <seg>
>>>> <seg type="object">card</seg>
>>> I would use <rs>. The typology you use on type= and subtype= can be
>>> * nonexistent, e.g., if you're only goal is to format them differently:
>>> * pretty vague, e.g.,
>>> <rs type="person">referee< you're talk/rs>
>>> <rs type="object">clock</rs>
>>> * pretty precise:
>>> <rs type="clock" subtype="grandfather">
>> <rs> is probably a good choice if you're talking about specific nameable objects (my grandfather's clock, rather than clocks in general) but <seg> is still OK, and has both @type and @subtype too
>> I note incidentally that there is an outstanding feature request for the TEI to provide an <object> element which can be used to record properties of specific named objects : don't think it's going to make it into next week's release though
> andreas trianta(fillidis)
> [log in to unmask]
> chief [executive] indian
> at thinking lpc
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
[log in to unmask]