On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:22:47 +0100, Fabio Ciotti
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes it seems to me as well that <relation> dominion has been
> generalized in the description, though it appears in the context of
> names dates etc. chapter of the Guidelines:
I think a generalized definition can be justified, but then the schemas
need to be adjusted accordingly. (I started with
But just out of curiosity: What would remain of the difference between
<link> and <relation> in this generalized sense ?
<q>defines an association or hypertextual link among elements or passages,
of some type not more precisely specifiable by other elements. [16.1]</q>
So, with relation uncoupled from "items" and redefined as "any kind of
relationship or linkage" closely resembles link "an association ... not
more precisely specifiable". Would <link> be absorbed by <relation> ?
> <q>(relationship) describes any kind of relationship or linkage
> amongst a specified group of places, events, persons, objects or other
> Anyway I would take seriously the idea of adding RDFa attributes to
> TEI vocabulary...
Applied Computational Linguistics
Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitšt Frankfurt a. M.
60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
office: Robert-Mayer-Str. 10, #401b
mail: [log in to unmask]