Dera Patrick and all
I agree with most of your points about <msPart>, i felt it was a
better choice having a new element, but splitting its function and
meaning via an attribute can work as well. And I am not an expert in
codicology so I prefer not to go on with and avoid any other comments.
Some thoughts (regard them as "pensieri in libertà", free floating
thoughts) instead on your last point.
> 5.) most interesting: TEI and other models of text.
> a) surely TEI, its basic structure and most single elements can be mapped to
> the basic entities in FRBR more or less precisely. But I assume that there
> is already a BA/MA thesis, a blog entry or a research article on this out
Maybe, but imho that would (work) and would be useful only for the
metadata layer of TEI (aka TEIHeader)
> b) my own pluralistic model of text (to which Arianna refered) has always
> been developed with the TEI as a potential test case for mapping between
> implicit textual models (like the TEI) and more explicit models (like mine)
> in mind. And it always was intended to clarify which notions of text you
> apply when you use certain TEI elements. And to clarify how you apply
> divergent notions of text within one digital representation.
I believe that TEI in the end has been perceived and used (designed?)
more as a metalanguage capable of being ontologically hospitable with
respect to many different models of text, even if we often see claims
that it has (or is) an underlying ontology of text. Last year in
Chicago I presented a talk proposing to give a general OWL definition
(semantics??) of XML/TEI (or at least of a subset) and I am working
with keen ontologists to try to do it practically. The more we go on
the more we find it is unfeasible, that is we can give ONE definition
but I already know of many usages of TEI that cannot fit with any
systematization we could do. Then it comes the question if it is still
sensible to go that way and I think it is.
BTW I believe that the when Allen Renear and its friends wrote
"Refining our Notion of what Text Really Is" probably they hit the
real core of the theory of text encoding
> c) this view ("ah, by using this TEI element you realize this model of
> text") can be further developed if others, like Fabio Ciotti, saying "I come
> from narratology and literary theory background, so my ontology of text has
> a much more layered and granular structure than any bibliographical based
> ontology" could tell us more about their ontologies and make them somewhat
> more explicit. I, at least, would be very happy about that.
Yes, I think this is important, and we should really try to do it,
take the notions of fabula, plot, motif, thema, isotopy, actant,
textual levels, narrative world or space, character and so on, and
work on them trying to translate them into clear ontologies, and see
how they relates with other well established ontologies (for instance
how narratologist notions of fabula and plot relates with the work
notion of FRBRoo?). Some job has been done, I myself are working on a
fragment of this. But it is hard and takes time, something really