On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:22:47 +0100, Fabio Ciotti  
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Yes it seems to me as well that <relation> dominion has been
> generalized in the description, though it appears in the context of
> names dates etc. chapter of the Guidelines:

I think a generalized definition can be justified, but then the schemas  
need to be adjusted accordingly. (I started with

But just out of curiosity: What would remain of the difference between  
<link> and <relation> in this generalized sense ?

<q>defines an association or hypertextual link among elements or passages,  
of some type not more precisely specifiable by other elements. [16.1]</q>

So, with relation uncoupled from "items" and redefined as "any kind of  
relationship or linkage" closely resembles link "an association ... not  
more precisely specifiable". Would <link> be absorbed by <relation> ?


> <q>(relationship) describes any kind of relationship or linkage
> amongst a specified group of places, events, persons, objects or other
> items</q>
> Anyway I would take seriously the idea of adding RDFa attributes to
> TEI vocabulary...
> f
Christian Chiarcos
Applied Computational Linguistics
Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitšt Frankfurt a. M.
60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

office: Robert-Mayer-Str. 10, #401b
mail: [log in to unmask]
tel: +49-(0)69-798-22463
fax: +49-(0)69-798-28931