search

TEI-Correspondence-SIG / CMIF

Correspondence Metadata Interchange Format
20 stars 5 forks source link

Textual basis of the letter #5

Open StefanDumont opened 8 years ago

StefanDumont commented 8 years ago

Gabriele Radecke from the Fontane-Arbeitsstelle at the Georg August University in Göttingen, request a possibility to mark the type of the textual basis of the letter in CMIF. Because in the use-case of her project (Fontane's notebooks), she has just concepts of letters and cannot always verify whether these concepts were really (and unchanged) sent or not.

StefanDumont commented 8 years ago

Possible solutions outlined here: http://digiversity.net/2015/perspectives-of-the-further-development-of-the-correspondence-metadata-interchange-format-cmif/#h.biu55y7jh39r

rettinghaus commented 8 years ago

From my perspective in these cases the letter neither has been sent nor received. But after all it is a 'correspondence action'. So probably a <correspAction type="concept"> would be appropriate. <persName> should state the writer of the concept, while any proposed addressee is merely a person 'just' mentioned and should thus be encoded in the proposed correspDesc/note. @evidence wouldn't be the right choice at this point as far as I understand the TEI Guidelines correctly.

Martin-de-la-Iglesia commented 5 years ago

Has there been any progress in this issue? If I understand https://digiversity.net/2015/perspectives-of-the-further-development-of-the-correspondence-metadata-interchange-format-cmif/ (section "Textual Basis") correctly, the idea is to use a letter concept as the source of information for a letter that was actually sent. Thus the sender wouldn't necessarily be the same person as the one who wrote the concept, and the sent/received date would be in the future.

Martin-de-la-Iglesia commented 5 years ago

After reconsidering the @evidence proposal at last week's SIG meeting, I for one would be fine with this approach. Any progress would be welcome, really.

rettinghaus commented 5 years ago

I'm still not convinced of using @evidence for this. Why not use @type (and @subtype) on <correspDesc>? They're already allowed in TEI, and this way we could be more precise about details, e.g. 

<correspDesc type="print" subtype="partial">

On the other hand, this would go along well with @type on <correspAction>.

rettinghaus commented 5 years ago

And yes: Any progress would be welcome, really.

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)