search

TEI-Correspondence-SIG / CMIF

Correspondence Metadata Interchange Format
20 stars 5 forks source link

Mentioned persons, places and publications #11

Open StefanDumont opened 7 years ago

StefanDumont commented 7 years ago

Edited copy from "Perspectives of the further development of the Correspondence Metadata Interchange Format"

Without doubt it is useful to indicate the persons, places, publications etc. mentioned in a letter text. In a printed edition these information will be usually provided in the various indexes. In the CMIF this could be encoded in correspDesc/note:

<note type="mentioned">
   <persName ref="http://viaf.org/viaf/24602065">Johann Wolfgang von Goethe</persName>
   <placeName ref="http://www.geonames.org/2874225">Mainz</placeName>
   <bibl ref="http://viaf.org/viaf/186077286">Die Leiden des jungen Werthers</bibl>
   <name ref="urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:164558-3:1.1">Kalanchoe pinnata</name>
   <date from="1793-04-14" to="1793-07-23">Belagerung von Mainz</date>
</note>

Instead of using the element event, as proposed in the mentioned article, it could be better to use date, just because it is TEI conform (perhaps with an attribute @type="event").

Even for the mentioned “entities”, the use of authority controlled IDs is necessary in an interchange format. Thus we should only consider to include those entities in the metadata record, for which authority files are available, i.e. persons, places and publications. Other entities such as objects and topics could also be provided in principle as long as authority files or standardized vocabularies exist, which we can refer to. One problem is, that publications have often multiple editions and therefore multiple URIs in Authority Files.

rettinghaus commented 7 years ago

Just to be picky: <date> should be close with </date> not </event> ;-)

StefanDumont commented 7 years ago

Thx, corrected! :-)

Martin-de-la-Iglesia commented 5 years ago

To sum up my thoughts on this issue from last week's SIG meeting: generally I'm wary of extending the CMIF in ways that allow for the inclusion of relatively ancillary information. In this case, particularly <bibl>, <name> and <date> will only be used by a small fraction of data contributors. This will introduce a bias to the retrieval, i.e. coverage of and thus search results from these fields will be incomplete without the user noticing it. Therefore I would restrict CMIF to only the data fields that are absolutely necessary.

StefanDumont commented 4 years ago

See current propsal on CMIF v2: https://encoding-correspondence.bbaw.de/v1/CMIF.html (please note the annotation function via Hypothes.is)