On a similar project, we've used:
and so on. I agree with Sebastian, though, that it's OK to handle
fictional or mythological figures using <listPerson>.
On 13-11-20 01:53 PM, Rachel Moloshok wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
> I’m working on this project with Sarah. We can certainly see how having
> a list of fictional people, like “Uncle Sam,” might not be that hard,
> but we are leery of encoding symbols such as “Donkey” (i.e., the
> Democratic Party) or “Ballot Box” (used in various contexts to represent
> voting, the voice of the people, etc.) using <person> elements. Can
> <person> be defined this broadly? Interested in hearing your thoughts.
> Rachel Moloshok
> Assistant Editor and Scholarly Programs Associate
> Historical Society of Pennsylvania
> [log in to unmask]
> *From:*TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Sebastian Rahtz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:40 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: depicted vs mentioned (and a symbol-ography?)
> what a nice project. well jell, as my dorter say.
> Seems to me that you could have two <listPerson>, one for the real
> folks, and the other
> for the Gnasher and Winston (the janitor's cat). They'll all have unique
> IDs, and you link to them
> from <persName> using @ref. Then the processing can look up which
> <listPerson> the entity is
> in, and style the occurrence accordingly.
> or am I over simplifying it?
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Oxford University IT Services
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])