Thank you for your replies. I guess <trait> may be good enough.

I am currently working with prosopographic descriptions of XVII Century
European writers, historians and scientists. There is no information
recorded about race or ethnicity... I guess that is because they were all
white and caucasian, but maybe this is a wrong assumption (it would be
great to find it out).

The question arose in the context of a theoretical discussion about
representing identity with TEI. I do not have a user case, but I think
encoding and retrieving race might be relevant in projects that focus on
contemporary writers and artists.


2017-11-14 19:25 GMT+01:00 Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]>:

> You could use <affiliation> or <trait>, since race is usually externally
> defined.
> On 14/11/17 18:23, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> I'm intrigued (and a little nervous) to find out what values you might
>> want to supply for race. What's the use-case?
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>> On 2017-11-14 10:09 AM, Antonio Rojas Castro wrote:
>>> Dear list,
>>> I am wondering why there is no tag to store information about race or
>>> ethnicity to describe a person using <person>.
>>> The TEI counts with specific elements such as <faith> and <sex> and also
>>> more vague elements such as <trait> and <state>.
>>> How are we supposed to encode this *basic* of information? Is it
>>> recommended the use of <trait>, <note type=“race”> or maybe I should just
>>> extend the vocabulary on my own?
>>> Thanks
>>> --
>>> ​Dr. Antonio Rojas Castro
>>> Researcher, Cologne Center for eHumanities
>>> Communication coordinator, EADH
>>> < <>>

​Antonio Rojas Castro
Postdoctoral Researcher, Cologne Center for eHumanities
Communication coordinator, EADH