Print

Print


I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Without a <toolStmt> (which
I'm not sure is necessary, since I think that <respStmt> works in this
case) I'd be more likely to use <respStmt> rather than <creation>

What about modifying the description of <respStmt> in the guidelines
to include "tools used to create the files"?

Dot

On 5/25/06, Peter Boot <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dot Porter wrote:
>
>  > Does it make sense to use <respStmt> to note the
>  > software and <creation> to note the "newness" of the descriptions?
>
> Dot, another problem that I'd have with the respStmt solution (besides
> it supposedly referring to a person rather than a program) is that the
> definion mentions 'responsible for the intellectual content', which is
> not really what the markup tool is responsible for.
>
> As I said earlier, I feel this is important enough for an element of its
> own. Why couldn't we have a <toolStmt>, on a par with <respStmt>? I'm
> sure there'll be more tools that generate TEI texts. But if it should be
> vanilla TEI, for the moment I'd prefer <creation>.
>
> Peter
>
>


-- 
***************************************
Dot Porter, Program Coordinator
Collaboratory for Research in Computing for Humanities
University of Kentucky
351 William T. Young Library
Lexington, KY  40506

[log in to unmask]          859-257-9549
***************************************