#452 <group> should be a member of att.typed

GREEN
closed-accepted
nobody
None
1(low)
2013-06-19
2013-04-19
Frederik
No

When grouping texts, and especially with nested group hierarchies, it would be helpful to assign a type to a group. If one regards <group> as a means to create hierarchies of texts, just like <div> is a mean to create hierarchies within texts, the same logic of distinguishing hierarchical elements by a type applies.

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2013-06-18

    Can you provide a sample use case?

     
  • Frederik
    Frederik
    2013-06-19

    Yes, sure!

    We are trying to convert http://tipitaka.org/romn/ to more structured TEI. Here, we have a nested hierarchy of pitaka (collection, literally: basket), nikaya (volume), book, chapter, subhead, subsubhead. For various reasons, we decided to use "chapter" as a single text, everything under it (subhead, subsubhead) as div, and everything above it as groups.

    Thus, we would like to do something along these lines:

    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
      <teiHeader/>
      <text>
        <group type="pitaka">
          <head>Suttapiṭaka</head>
          <group type="nikaya">
            <head>Dīghanikāyo</head>
            <group type="book">
              <head>Sīlakkhandhavaggapāḷi</head>
              <text type="chapter">
                <body>
                  <div type="subhead">
                  content ...
                  </div>
                </body>
              </text>
            </group>
          </group>
        </group>
      </text>
    </TEI>
    

    Does this make sense?

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2013-06-19

    Thanks for the example. I can see no logical reason why we shouldn't allow @type on <group> in the same way as we do on <text> and <div> . However, I am quite curious about the reasons that led you to treat each chapter as a single text, rather than as a div. To my mind a chapter is an incomplete object, whereas the definition (admittedly rather vague) of a <text> suggests that it is complete in itself. I don't know enough (or anything much!) about this material so I cannot judge how pertinent that distinction is to your work. However, as aforesaid, I see no problem in adding @type to <group>.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2013-06-19

    • Group: AMBER --> GREEN
    • Priority: 5 --> 1(low)
     
  • Paul Schaffner
    Paul Schaffner
    2013-06-19

    Well, the usual reason for treating as a group of texts what one might otherwise treat as a text divided into divs is that one or more of the included div-like parts has its own front and/or back matter. E.g. a collection of sermons is a text, each sermon is a div; but these are frequently published both separately and as a collection, and in the latter case the title pages, dedications, etc., of each sermon are preserved in the collected edition. What would be a div'd body must necessarily be tagged as a group of texts. But I think the request must relate to some other need, since in my example the superordinate text tag happily bears the @type attribute, with no need to type group, or body for that matter. I have no objection to adding @type to group, however, in the interest of the abstract structure text-group-text-div.

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2013-06-19

    I see no reason not to do this. I can imagine other, less controversial, contexts in which a single document would contain different groups of texts of different types (e.g. one group of extracts from dramatic texts and one of extracts from poetry).

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2013-06-19

    As with Martin, seems to pass my straw poll test of whether something should get att.type: "Is it repeatable? Yes. Is it reasonable that you might want to classify them in more than one way? Yes."

    -James

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2013-06-19

    Implemented at rev12281

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2013-06-19

    • status: open --> closed-accepted