We are currently encoding prosopograhic descriptions and we are very interested in representing relations between people and with publications. Here is an example:
<person xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:xd="http://www.oxygenxml.com/ns/doc/xsl" xml:id="person_00047" role="actor">
<persName>Barthès de Marmorières, Antoine (1736-1811)</persName>
<relation name="vater" ref="person_01501"/>
<relation name="bruder" ref="person_00048"/>
<relation name="freund" ref="person_01241">
<desc>A. war Sekretär vor 1789 (unter "Comte d'Artois")</desc>
<ref target="publication_03151">Die Blütezeit der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft in Bern 1759-1766</ref>
At the moment, <listRelation> can be a child of <listPerson> but not a child of <person>. As you can see in the example, we are not interested in creating a list of people but to describe one person, use a <relation> element to store the name of the relation and provide a reference that points to another person.
In order to this we are nesting <listRelation> within a <bibl> element. However, we are not satisfied with this workaround and we are wondering why <listRelation> cannot be a child of <persons> as <listBibl>. Otherwise, is there any alternative that we may have overlooked?
Thanks in advance.
faced with a similar task I've used the <listRelation> element placed as a sibling of <person>.
<relation name="child" passive="P4f60049a-e123-44e8-8489-502b483baff4" subtype="natural" type="family" cert="high"/>
Which is actually invalid without explicitly specifying @active side of relationship (but okay for my purposes since, like you, I always have separate TEI document per person anyway). I do support your view that allowing <listRelation> inside <person> without using rather confusing 'workarounds' would make perfect sense. One side of the relationship would be thus always implicit by the virtue of element nesting and seems more intuitive than a big bag of mixed relationship descriptions.
I would be interested in hearing other views on the subject!
On 26 September 2017 at 17:46, Antonio Rojas Castro <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am in the same situation and have introduced note/@type=“relation” to collect listRelations as (grand-)child of person. Which seems to be more fitting then bibl, but not by much.
On first sight, a sibling listRelation seems easier to maintain and to prevent duplicates. However, in my experience with large prosopographies (300K person) this is not the case. Having listRelation as a possible child much better matches the way that editors actually discover relations, I would greatly welcome a chance to the specs in this regard.
P.S: There is already a tickets talking about listRelation here https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/567
I thank you Magdalena and Duncan for your messages.
I am glad to know that we are not alone with this issue.
I agree that note/@type=“relation” is more elegant than my solution, so I will implement it. However, I hope the Council will considerer our needs and proposal.
We are creating comprehensive prosopographic descriptions of many people and we are already using a lot of notes for information that is not covered by the TEI yet. I am very reluctant to use one more note. That is why I would prefer that <listRelation> was a direct child of <person>.
In any case, I thank you a lot for your feedback.
Dr. Antonio Rojas Castro
Researcher, Cologne Center for eHumanities
Communication coordinator, EADH
El 27 de septiembre de 2017 a las 12:10:05, Paterson, Duncan ([hidden email]) escribió:
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|