Re: Why @type is not allowed in <occupation>

Thank you Syd for all these great suggestions.

We actually are just interested in distinguishing “main” professions from
“others” whereas the “main” of person A might be the “other” of person B.

At the moment we cannot model a whole taxonomy for all the entries but I am
wondering whether this could be a workaround.

TeiHeader:

<encodingDesc>
         <classDecl>
            <taxonomy>
               <category xml:id="main">
                  <catDesc>Main occupation</catDesc>
               </category>
               <category xml:id="other">
                  <catDesc>Secondary occupation</catDesc>
               </category>
            </taxonomy>
         </classDecl>
      </encodingDesc>

Person in the body:


               <occupation from="1785" code=“#main">Historiker</occupation>
               <occupation code="#main">Jurist</occupation>
               <occupation code="#main">Statistiker</occupation>
               <occupation code="#other">Hofmeister / Söhne des Kanzlers
von Gersdorff in Dresden 1743-46</occupation>

Thanks for your feedback.


Best,

-- 
​Dr. Antonio Rojas Castro
Researcher, Cologne Center for eHumanities
Communication coordinator, EADH
<http://www.antoniorojascastro.com>

El 4 de marzo de 2017 a las 17:15:38, Syd Bauman ([email protected])
escribió:

I've submitted ticket #1600 for this request.[1]

But just to make sure you know, it is quite reasonable to store the
<taxonomy> in an external file and then either

a) XInclude it into your <teiHeader>,

b) point directly to the external file (e.g.,
<occupation code="occtax.xml#to2.dd"/>
), or

c) point directly to the external file using a private scheme URI
mapped out by a <prefixDef> in the <teiHeader> (e.g.,
<occupation code="o:to2.dd"/>
).

Choice (c) is the easiest to encode, and the most robust & flexible;
but it is also a bit harder to set up and significantly harder to
write code to process. Choice (a) is only better than putting it in
your <teiHeader> by 1 step. (But at my project, that one step -- that
the people doing the encoding shouldn't have the burden of seeing or
dealing with the <taxonomy> -- is what we care about, so we use
choice (a) for now.) My sense is that most projects lean towards (b),
but that is based on scant and ill-recalled evidence of people who
were *planning* to use <taxonomy> in their projects, not actually
doing so much yet. :-)

And, of course, the same three possibilities could be used for your
prosopographic data, too.

> I would prefer to keep the teiHeader simple and avoid taxonomies
> because we are dealing winth a lot of prosopographic entries.
>
> Said that, can anyone tell me more about the reasoning behind the @type
> attribute? I still think it would be the best approach.

Notes
-----
[1] See https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1600. If you have a
GitHub account (and maybe if not, idunno) you can arrange to get
notifications when the ticket is updated by clicking on the
"Watch" button near the upper right.