editor and respStmt

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

editor and respStmt

Dominique Meeùs
Looking how to encode a translator, I came across “<editor> contains a secondary statement of responsibility for a bibliographic item, for example the name of an individual, institution or organization, (or of several such) acting as editor, compiler, translator, etc.” [3.11.2.2 Titles, Authors, and Editors]

Thus, editor is everybody. Then comes respStmt, not so much for other contributions to the text, because all contributors are editors, but because of a different syntax: “The respStmt element may also be used for editors, if it is desired to record the specific terms in which their role is described.” The semantic of respStmt is explicitly given as the shortcomings of the editor element! What is the use of a limited element, and another one because of the shortcomings of the former? Do I miss something? But phrases as “Translated by” are allowed in editor also. (editor @role=translator “Translated by” persName…) The only difference is that “Translated by” is then only a phrase, not a resp element. Then, why not allow resp in editor and keep respStmt for really special uses (in the TEI header maybe)?

One sees in many examples, not editor, but a respStmt containing a resp and a persName, because editor, the semantically normal candidate, was supposedly unusable. An typical example with both an editor and a respStmt is under 3.11.2.1 about Thaller Manfred, “A Draft Proposal for a Standard for the Coding of Machine Readable Sources”. The editor of the monograph is in an editor element. The editor of the series is in a respStmt element. This is obviously incoherent: for the logic and the beauty of the code, one would expect twice editor, or twice respStmt.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: editor and respStmt

Dominique Meeùs
Sorry. I did read and reread the Guidelines and I did rewrite my post many times before posting it. (I learnt a lot.) After sending it, it flashes in my old neurons: a respStmt is a statement, an editor is not.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: editor and respStmt

Lou Burnard-6
In reply to this post by Dominique Meeùs
I think there is little difference between

<editor>John Florio</editor>

and

<respStmt>
<resp>editor</resp>
<name>John Florio</name>
</respStmt>

The TEI does however permit using <editor> for any kind of "secondary"
statement of responsibility, as you note, and the @type attribute can be
used to specify what kind of responsibility you mean. So <editor
type="translator">John Florio</editor> is perfectly possible. However,
several people (not all of them editors) feel quite strongly that
<editor> really should be used just for *editors* and the more generic
<respStmt> used for everything else.  Which is what leads to the kind of
inconsistency you have detected...



On 29/07/17 21:04, Dominique Mee ùs wrote:
> Looking how to encode a translator, I came across “<editor> contains a secondary statement of responsibility for a bibliographic item, for example the name of an individual, institution or organization, (or of several such) acting as editor, compiler, translator, etc.” [3.11.2.2 Titles, Authors, and Editors]
>
> Thus, editor is everybody. Then comes respStmt, not so much for other contributions to the text, because all contributors are editors, but because of a different syntax: “The respStmt element may also be used for editors, if it is desired to record the specific terms in which their role is described.” The semantic of respStmt is explicitly given as the shortcomings of the editor element! What is the use of a limited element, and another one because of the shortcomings of the former? Do I miss something? But phrases as “Translated by” are allowed in editor also. (editor @role=translator “Translated by” persName…) The only difference is that “Translated by” is then only a phrase, not a resp element. Then, why not allow resp in editor and keep respStmt for really special uses (in the TEI header maybe)?
>
> One sees in many examples, not editor, but a respStmt containing a resp and a persName, because editor, the semantically normal candidate, was supposedly unusable. An typical example with both an editor and a respStmt is under 3.11.2.1 about Thaller Manfred, “A Draft Proposal for a Standard for the Coding of Machine Readable Sources”. The editor of the monograph is in an editor element. The editor of the series is in a respStmt element. This is obviously incoherent: for the logic and the beauty of the code, one would expect twice editor, or twice respStmt.
Loading...