Re: Repeat <additions>

Dear Lou,

I agree with you that <additions> was meant to be a container, but 
Philipps initial request was about distinguishable aspects of additions 
or distinguishable additions thus I thought my proposal on 
<additionNotes> would not be to far fetched.

Your remarks on difficulties to split up descriptions holds true for all 
the other containers as well: One could always provide only one 
<xxxNote>. (unfortunately not only a <summary>)

As I said: I'm aware of the fact that inventing this structure here 
would break backwards compatibility but would "only" be more coherent 
with similar structures. It's up to the Council to decide. ;-)

Best, Torsten


Am 20.10.2016 um 18:46 schrieb Lou Burnard:
> I agree that making these elements repeatable would be a bad idea:
> additions is intended to be a kind of summarising container element like
> decoDesc. I am less sure about Thorsten's proposed  rationalisation
> because I think there are many cases in which discussion of "additions"
> would be difficult to split up into individual "additionNote"s.  That at
> any rate was the original belief of the group which proposed this
> structure. And you can structure it internally with labelled lists or
> paragraphs if you wish as noted.
>
> In the meantime, I have corrected the example which misled Philipp and
> added a sentence or two to the chapter to reinforce the definition in
> the Guidelines.
>
>
> In 20/10/16 13:24, Torsten Schassan wrote:
>> Dear Philipp, dear colleagues,
>>
>> although backwards compatibility is one of the highest goods in the
>> development of the TEI, I would be in favour of a slightly different
>> approach to this problem than just make some elements repeatable:
>>
>> Following the structures we provide for repeatable elements in other
>> places, we have a
>> - container element <xxxDesc> and
>> - children <xxxNote>
>>
>> e.g. decoDesc/decoNote, handDescc/handNote etc.
>>
>> In the cases mentioned it would be reasonable to "invent"
>>
>> <additionDesc> and <additionNote> (and a leading <summary>)
>> <musicDesc> and <musicNote> (or maybe musicNotationDesc,
>> musicNotationNote?)
>>
>> Even though <list> is allowed inside of <additions>, it would provide
>> "only" the above mentioned compatibility but implementing a system
>> could maybe be preferable?
>>
>> Best, Torsten
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 20.10.2016 um 11:08 schrieb Philipp Vanscheidt:
>>> Dear Peter,
>>>
>>> thanks for your reference to <list>. I think we will try it. If it does
>>> not work, I will think about a feature request. But currently I do not
>>> know what I really would request for:
>>>
>>> 1. Make <additions> repeatable. I guess I see the point why
>>> model.physDescPart is not repeatable in the cases of the its other
>>> members.
>>> 2. Make <additions> a child of itself. Thus, model.physDescPart in
>>> <physDesc> could stay as it is. Maybe I want not to speak about groups
>>> of additions but only about one addition.
>>> 3. In that case an element <additon> as child of <additions> would be
>>> nice.
>>>
>>> But indeed, at the moment I think that none of this is really necessary
>>> if <list> does what we want. However, I think that the example in the
>>> guidelines should be commented.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Philipp
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 2016-10-20 09:49, schrieb Peter Stadler:
>>>> Hi Philipp,
>>>>
>>>> good catch! The examples are somewhat misleading in suggesting they
>>>> actually form *one* example within <physDesc>. The same issue is
>>>> repeated with <musicNotation>, btw.
>>>> I looked a little bit into older releases of the Guidelines and yes,
>>>> the schema and the prose always constrained <physDesc> to a sequence
>>>> where no member of the sequence is repeatable.
>>>> So, I’d say that issue is a good candidate for a bug report on
>>>> https://github.com/TEIC/TEI to separate those examples.
>>>> Second, maybe your issue with several types of additions could be
>>>> handled with a <list> inside <additions> (see the last example at
>>>> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#mspham)?
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>> Am 19.10.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Philipp Vanscheidt
>>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear list,
>>>>>
>>>>> there is an example in the guidelines in which the <additions>
>>>>> element is repeated several times:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/MS.html#mspham
>>>>>
>>>>> There is only one element allowing <additions>, namely <physDesc>.
>>>>> But the content model of this element (and tei_all) tell(s) me that
>>>>> "additions?" is expected and <additions> therefore not repeatable. I
>>>>> would like to repeat it for different types of additions or different
>>>>> hands if there is now other way that should be preferred to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Philipp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Sprach- und
>>>>> Literaturwissenschaft
>>>>> Dolivostraße 15, 64293 Darmstadt
>>>>> Tel.: 06151/1657405
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und 
Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.: 
+49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165)
Handschriftendatenbank* http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss