LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EAD Archives


EAD Archives

EAD Archives


EAD@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EAD Home

EAD Home

EAD  April 1996

EAD April 1996

Subject:

Re: EAD (fwd)

From:

Daniel Pitti <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Encoded Archival Description List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:36:43 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:08:28 CDT
From: Peter Flynn <[log in to unmask]>
To: Multiple recipients of list TEI-L <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: EAD

Stephen Davis <[log in to unmask]> writes:

   I'm afraid I'm increasingly concerned, not only in the EAD, but in the
   TEI and some other newly proposed DTDs, how far away from a "data
   dictionary" approach we're headed, and instead apparently about to
   implement for all new digital library applications an entirely
   postionally-based syntactic approach to data structuring.

Not being familiar with the EAD work, I'm not clear what our
"distance" from a DD approach is, but I would share your concerns
(especially as we're putting in a new library system here :-)

   Realistically, how often do we want to wrestle with why a particular
   element isn't defined within another element?  This seems to let the
   container drive the content, where it should really be the opposite.
   WHEREVER I need a <persname> I should be able to use it.  At this rate
   it looks as though it would be best to define every element as possibly
   appearing within any other element, in any order!  And, actually, why
   not?

I don't think we need go that far, but I do agree (quite strongly)
that there is a need for far wider availability of the descriptive
elements within the TEI structure - persname is just one example of an
incredibly useful concept that I am finding people need to use pretty
much anywhere that you can type #PCDATA (and I am happy to report that
I have finally got persname and placename to work, details later :-)

   (A version of this issue came up several times at the recent TEI
   workshop in DC.  When people finally get down and dirty with encoding a
   corpus, they appear to need the flexibility of using an element
   _wherever_ it's needed, rather than just where someone thought to define
   it. They also don't appear to want to manage dozens of genre-based DTDs
   for poetry, prose, drama, verse drama, etc. )

Managing the genre-based apps is not really the problem. My guess is
that each project will settle on a broadly-based DTD subset which can
describe its texts, and perhaps use one or two more specialist ones
for a few documents. I think there is an element of self-selection (eg
texts are all by one individual, or all from one period, or all from
one culture, etc) which helps in this.

But it is true that an element should be available where it is
_needed_ rather than where it seemed likely at the time the DTD was
compiled. Prosimetrum is the best (worst?) example: it ought to be
possible in the middle of a paragraph to start a poetic fragment of
anything from a word to several verses, and then resume the same
paragraph. The structure assumed by most DTDs I have seen forces
termination of the para, insertion of a poem, then the start of a new
para. In the TEI, the only way I have seen so far to make this work is
to use TEXT inside P, which means the versicle is separated from the
para text by three additional levels of tagging (TEXT, BODY, LG). If
I've missed a cleaner way of doing it, someone please shout!

Fortunately, one of the benefits of SGML and the TEI is that they do
allow you to define where you want stuff in this manner.
Unfortunately, low-level modification (like changing content model
groups) does require a serious grasp of the standard as well as
in-depth knowledge of what is actually _inside_ the existing DTD.

   Perhaps we will need to rethink a good part of the structure of SGML
   documents, e.g., to use broad hierarchies reflecting significant
   structural components of the text, and then simply defining an extended
   data dictionary that can be applied wherever needed under any of the
   hierarchical levels.  (Frankly, given that there are no "rules" for the
   content of a finding aid, how can all elements NOT be valid under all
   other elements, in any order desired??)

I'm not clear about this. ISO 8879 gives very explicit rules for
parsing, which is presumably the principal component of a finding aid.
It _is_ a problem, though, when using SGML descriptively rather than
prescriptively.

   This kind of generalized strategy might have the added benefit of
   allowing the creation of a few, more generic blanket DTDs, reducing the
   DTD-proliferation we're starting to see.

I haven't actually seen this proliferation, and I'd be interested to
look at some of these DTDs. Do you have any pointers?

[list omitted]
                       <corpname> <famname> <genreform> <geogname>
                       <name> <occupation> <persname>

These are probably fine for some purposes, but would need much
greater refinement and subtagging for any kind of analytical work.
Despite a few drawbacks and unevennesses, this is where I think the
TEI scores.

///Peter

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
December 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager