On 18/02/2014 11:22, Řyvind Eide wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
Looking at <event> , I notice that it is a second-class
citizen, in that it has to occur within a <person> or
<place> (or a list of events). Surely this limits the extent
to which one could do "event-based modelling" in TEI.
Is it correct to say that we know of an event (a funeral) through the inscription, and that Fabius Honoratus played a role in that event? Or is it more to the point to say that the inscription claims that such an event happened? Or does the idea of an event in this case sound strange to the scholarly thinking around such inscriptions?
The good thing about event based modelling (and encoding) is that it makes it easy to clarify some of the role issues. The problem is that it may be a bit cumbersome to encode.