> - first of all, my understanding is that while TEI formalises existing practices, its scope is usually wider than, say, freeze what manuscript catalogues do and aims at including at least what critical editors do too, but historical linguists etc. This flexibility is the crux yet the crown if TEI. Now an editor might care about the physical objects but usually also focus on the text as concept. I used (and abused?) Patrick's Sahle wheel many times now because of its analytical power, but basically TEI tends to spread over that wheel in more or less balanced fashion across its modules, so while one could argue the manuscript description module embodies a physical notion of text, well, if I use those elements in a critical apparatus my use might be skewed towards representing a text as concept, as work rather than as physical item.
yes, true, but i think the problem here is the semantic of the markup,
not the complexity of the world or of the pragmatics of encoding. Put
it on a philosophical level: if our reference domain is made of many
different objects would not be safer to assing a different name to any
of them in the theoretic language we adopt to describe them formally?
> - is there scope for TEI and FRBRoo to get together and discuss some of these things? The standards have different purposes of course but some convergence or discussion might be fruitful.
It surely would, although I think that FRBR ontology is quite too
simple compared to the complex ontologies underlying textual studies.