Print

Print


I think Stuart is complaining about the definition of <def> which 
certainly suggests that if it just contains a graphic or a link then 
it's wrong. But I think his complaint is based on a category error. 
After all, a graphic is not a definition, useful in understanding 
something though it might be, any more than a pointer to some other 
dictionary entry is a replacement for a definition, useful in 
understanding it though it may well be. As Sebastian notes, the graphic 
and the link could both be assimilated into the existing <def>dog</def>.
I am not sure how to understand multiple <def>s within a single <sense>: 
my guess is that this would be appropriate where multiple previously 
independent sources were being combined into a single resource. Is that 
the case here?

It's always possible to make a case for using @type to rectify a misuse 
of over-extension of the semantics of an element.... :-)


  mOn 31/01/13 13:47, Martin Holmes wrote:
> <def> can contain <ref>, according to the Guidelines:
>
> <http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-def.html>
>
> I see no reason why it shouldn't be a member of att.typed, though; your
> example makes a good case, IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 13-01-31 01:14 AM, stuart yeates wrote:
>> The current definition of def is at
>> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-def.html I've
>> been trying to use it as:
>>
>> <entry n="kurī - dog">
>>    <form xml:lang="mi-NZ">
>>      <orth>
>>       <w xml:id="n1" lemma="dog">kurī</w>
>>      </orth>
>>    </form>
>>    <sense>
>>     <def type="text" xml:lang="en-NZ">
>>      <w corresp="#n1">dog</w>
>>     </def>
>>     <def type="image">
>>      <ref
>> target="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labrador_Retriever_snow.jpg"/>
>>
>>     </def>
>>     <def type="image">
>>      <ref
>> target="http://openclipart.org/detail/63865/dog-silhouette-by-laobc"/>
>>     </def>
>>     <def type="dictionary">
>>      <ref
>> target="http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/index.cfm?wordID=3309#1"/>
>>     </def>
>>    </sense>
>> </entry>
>>
>> But this is wrong on two counts:
>>
>> (a) def is required to contain 'definition text', rather than a
>> reference or an image
>>
>> (b) def doesn't allow use of the 'type' attribute
>>
>> Do either of these restrictions make sense to anyone, because they sure
>> don't to me...
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>>