Print

Print


I would argue that <relation> is inherently a stand-off element, because 
it links multiple components. Even at its simplest, it links two 
components, so you would have to decide to put it inside one <place> or 
the other <place>, so it wouldn't be ideally placed for one of them. To 
place it in the <list*> among whose components it's defining relations 
seems the logical thing to me.

Cheers,
Martin

On 15-08-21 09:20 AM, BODARD Gabriel wrote:
> Unfortunately (?) there is a hack to this, which is that you can embed
> the `<relation>` elements in a listBibl, within each place, giving the
> convenience desired by the original questioner (and by most people
> encoding gazetteers or personographies involving relationships, I imagine).
>
> Unsurprisingly therefore, I'm going to argue the content model of
> `<listPlace>` is "incorrect{ly}". :)
>
>
> On 21/08/2015 16:54, Syd Bauman wrote:
>> Very quickly ...
>>
>>> ... which has some hierarchical relationship with other places in
>>> the list ...
>>
>> If the relationship is hierarchical, there may be a better way to
>> represent it. E.g., the fact that my home town (Rehoboth) is part of
>> Bristol County which is part of Massachusetts which is part of the
>> United States might be represented with something like one of the
>> following.
>>
>>          <place type="town" xml:id="town_Rehoboth_long-hand">
>>            <placeName>Rehoboth</placeName>
>>            <location>
>>              <region type="county">Bristol</region>
>>              <region type="state">Massachusetts</region>
>>              <country>United States of America</country>
>>            </location>
>>          </place>
>>          <!-- OR -->
>>          <place type="town" xml:id="town_Rehoboth_using_refs">
>>            <placeName>Rehoboth</placeName>
>>            <location>
>>              <region ref="#county_Bristol"/>
>>              <region ref="#state_MA"/>
>>              <country ref="#country_USA"/>
>>            </location>
>>          </place>
>>
>> Yes, it's a bit more encoding, but depending on what you're trying to
>> do, the former is *much* easier to process. (And the latter is
>> probably easier, too.)
>>
>> Anyway, the content model for <listPlace> is (rightly or wrongly):
>>
>>     (
>>        model.headLike*,
>>        ( model.placeLike | listPlace )+,
>>        ( relation | listRelation )*
>>     )
>>
>> which is to say "any number of <head> or things like it, followed by
>> one or more <place> or <listPlace>, followed by any number of
>> <relation> or <listRelation>". Thus, all the relationship information
>> goes *after* the list of places.
>>
>>
>>> I am making a <placeList> which involves the inclusion of multiple
>>> types of places, all of which has some hierarchical relationship
>>> with other places in the list. To mark this relationship, the most
>>> rational strategy in the TEI element set is of course <relation>,
>>> which according to the guidelines, it is allowed to occur within a
>>> <listPlace>.
>>>
>>> Ideally I would like to put a relation element within each <place>
>>> entry block so as to keep all of the information all in the same
>>> place for the entire contents of the list, but for some reason that
>>> is not allowed….
>>>
>>> So the next most acceptable thing is to place the <relation>'s in
>>> somewhere near (either before or after) the related elements so the
>>> encoding process and human readability of the document is easier…
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>>              <place n="681" xml:id="Öst.">
>>>                 <placeName xml:lang="de">Österreich</placeName>
>>>                 <placeName xml:lang="de" full="abb">Öst.</placeName>
>>>                 <location>
>>>                    <geo corresp="#gis_region_id-862"/>
>>>                 </location>
>>>              </place>
>>>
>>>              <relation name="vaterregion" active="#Öst." passive="#Kä
>>> #OÖ #Bgl. #NÖ #Sa. #St. #Tir. #W. #Vlbg."/>
>>>
>>>              <!--  administrative regions within country -->
>>>             <place n="181" xml:id="OÖ">
>>>                <placeName xml:lang="de">Oberösterreich</placeName>
>>>                <placeName xml:lang="de" full="abb">OÖ</placeName>
>>>                <location>
>>>                   <geo corresp="#gis_region_id-735"/>
>>>                </location>
>>>             </place>
>>>
>>>              <place n="101" xml:id="Kä">
>>>                 <placeName xml:lang="de">Kärnten</placeName>
>>>                 <placeName xml:lang="de" full="abb">Kä</placeName>
>>>                 <location>
>>>                    <geo corresp="#gis_region_id-708"/>
>>>                 </location>
>>>              </place>
>>>        ….
>>>
>>> However, when placed in multiple, non-adjacent places as described
>>> above the following error message is raised (in Oxygen):
>>>
>>> E [Jing] element "place" not allowed here; expected the element
>>> end-tag or element "listRelation" or "relation"
>>>
>>> I have noticed this also happens where trying to do the same thing
>>> (which also should be allowed according to the guidelines) within
>>> <listPerson> as well.
>>>
>>>> Is this supposed to happen or is there something wrong with
>>>> Oxygen?
>>>
>>>>> If this is not a glitch, can anyone explain to me the reasoning
>>>>> behind requiring that all occurrences of <relation> be adjacent
>>>>> in these contexts?
>
>