On 13. feb. 2014, at 18:28, Scott Vanderbilt (TEI-L) wrote:

> On 2/13/2014 8:30 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> I think this depends on whether Scott's XML is claiming that the person Fabius Honoratius's role in life is as tribune and relict, or whether the role of this occurrence of his name in this text is to identify both the tribune and the relict in the context of this inscription. If the latter, then @role on `<persName>` is exactly what the wants, isn't it?
>> yes, I do agree there is a place for @role on <persName>. I guess Scott didnít give us enough context
>> to really tell one way or the other
> Right. Sorry for that. Yes, indeed, it is my intention to particularly indicate the role(s) of the named person _within the context_ of the current text.
> So, in my example, Fabius Honoratus is the survivor of the deceased person for whom the funerary inscription was made, while also expressly indicating his status as legionary tribune (not merely a prosopographical fact we happen to know about the man incidentally).

Sorry for coming in late in this, but it is quite interesting. 

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.

ōyvind Eide