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?


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?


​Dr. Antonio Rojas Castro
Researcher, Cologne Center for eHumanities
Communication coordinator, EADH
< <>>

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