I was going to say that if we'd decided that editionStmt/edition was the 
place for @docStatus, we should consider whether we wanted it as an att 
value on edition and/or an optional sibling such as <docStatus>. The 
advantage of @docStatus is that it encourages people to come-up with 
controlled vocabularies. The advantage of a sibling is that it gives 
people a way of stating complex statuses (e.g. 
<edition>first</edition><*docStatus>TEI encoded with a new bibliography 
by Dan O'Donnell</*docStatus>[1]).

But since label already is there, it seems to me that we can have the 
best of both worlds: @docStatus on editionStmt/edition for controlled 
vocabularies, and <label> as the optional sibling if you want space for 
more discursive descriptions of status.

I do think that at a minimum we need a method of stating this status as 
a controlled vocabulary list (even if we leave only suggest values in 
the guidelines). Document status control is extremely important in many 
different institutions, and most already have a developed controlled 
vocabulary for which they will want a mechanism. So while Label is in 
fact a useful supplement, I think the ability to express status on an 
attribute is going to be essential.

Is it correct that the only places edition shows up is in editionStmt 
and bibl|biblStruct? If so, @docStatus would only make sense in the 
context of the teiHeader. I guess there's no way of restricting it to 
that context, is there?


[1] The * is just  there to indicate the element doesn't exist yet.

Lou Burnard wrote:
> I've just realised you could also do all this -- with no need for 
> customization -- by using the <label>  element, which is already 
> available within <edition>, as a sibling of <date>.
> <edition>
>  <date>23 jun 09</date>
>  <label>withdrawn</label>
> </edition>
> So no need for a new attribute. If we do go for a new attribute, we 
> need to remember that it would apply to the status of the document 
> whose edition is being specified -- so for example, @docStatus on an 
> <edition> inside a <sourceDesc> would refer to the status of the 
> source document, not that of its digital version.
> Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Here are some possibilities:
>> unfinished
>> draft
>> galley (for proofing)
>> published
>> withdrawn
>> expired
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>> I'm convinced too -- edition/@docStatus sounds perfect. Do you 
>>>> agree that it should be an open string value in the regular schema, 
>>>> but with lots of useful suggestions in the Guidelines?
>>> yes indeed. its a perfect example for an open string
>>> and a local customization
>>>> Should we start gathering suggestions?
>>> my current list includes "draft" and "frozen", but
>>> I'm in the middle of a debate at work about suitable names...

Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Associate Professor of English
University of Lethbridge

Chair and CEO, Text Encoding Initiative (
Co-Chair, Digital Initiatives Advisory Board, Medieval Academy of America
President-elect (English), Society for Digital Humanities/Société pour l'étude des médias interactifs (
Founding Director (2003-2009), Digital Medievalist Project (

Vox: +1 403 329-2377
Fax: +1 403 382-7191 (non-confidental)
Home Page: