Print

Print


Consistency is, of course, a good thing and we probably shouldn't have 
"org" and "organization" side by side without explaining why. But I 
don't think it's a bug... I'm not convinced that it's necessarily a good 
idea always to constrain the values for attributes, like this one, where 
different projects are likely to have very different needs, 
expectations, or preconceptions. In a given project it may make sense 
always to use <rs type="org"> and in another <rs 
type="somethingcompletelydifferent"> ... Like <s>,  <rs> is one of those 
very loose cannon which probably should be allowed to dash wildly all 
over the deck  (if you follow my metaphor)

I wasn't aware of the "cataloging" sense of "corporate" but this really 
does correspond with our TEI use of "org": <org> and <orgName> are used 
also to refer to e.g. tribal groupings. I would say even the Bristol 
Society of Anarchists qualified as one.



Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> Torsten,
> 
> I would submit a bug report in SourceForge noting the inconsistent @type 
> values.  You are right that recommending only a single value for a 
> certain phenomenon increases the ease of interchange of text.
> 
> As for "organization" vs. "corporate", I see "corporate" as having a 
> slightly wider scope than "organization".  A *corporate name* is a term 
> from library cataloging, indicating not only formal organizations like 
> various types of business corporations and not-for-profit organizations 
> but also government agencies and even groups of people without formal 
> organization, like "the Bloomsbury Group".  However, to a non-cataloger, 
> it might sound like "corporate" just refers to a money-making enterprise.
> 
> So I trust you to recommend in SourceForge an appropriate value for 
> examples of rs@type and perhaps even to propose some text for the 
> appropriate section of the Guidelines explaining how to interpret these 
> various values.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> Torsten Schassan wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> do/can we agree on a form the <rs type=""> values are built? Would those
>> be "full" names, like "person" or "organization", or are short forms
>> preferred?
>>
>> The examples in the Guidelines are ambiguous (if uniformity would be a
>> goal):
>>
>> example 2: <rs type="organization">Watering Committee</rs>
>> example 3: <rs type="org">Circumlocution Office</rs>
>>
>> Especially on organizations: Would it be a good idea to stick to "org"
>> in that case as we have elements using this short form? (org, orgName)
>>
>>
>> I also wonder whether someone (else) uses "corporate" instead of or
>> additional to "organization"?
>>
>> Best, Torsten
>>
>> - -- 
>> Torsten Schassan
>> Digitale Editionen
>> Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
>> Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
>> Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at} hab.de
>>
>> http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/europeana-regia.htm
>> http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/weiss64.htm
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iD8DBQFMfhrAq4nZEP2KS4QRAo2fAJ0aSwrrsGcDXWP9oKahrSg6P/ksrQCfQINl
>> NqYpdsKEDuN64E7ariEBMfw=
>> =lEOP
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----