The current EpiDoc schema inherits some "suggested" values for @unit on biblScope (and other citation-related elements). These suggested values are inherited from the TEI, but EpiDoc workshop participants note that a number of additional values (common to epigraphic publication), could usefully be added:
I have no objection to this. Perhaps we could crowdsource a list of (no more than 5-6) additional values from the Markup list, and also decide which are sufficiently arcane to remain user-defined.
Are the EpiDoc Guidelines explicit about the fact that this is an open, not closed, list of values?
I don't think the EpiDoc guidelines talk about this at all.
I have now written to markup about this: http://lsv.uky.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1710&L=markup&F=&S=&P=2467
On-list suggestions to date:
"entry" should be added too (for dictionnary/encyclopedia entries, often ordered alphabetically so with no page number or item number)
I agree that we should retain "entry" and the other values currently inherited from the TEI: volume, issue, page, line, chapter, part, column, entry.
Thanks Tom,
it tested it with oxygen and the new values were not presented., Even after
updating the oxygen tei framework.
Sorry for the bothering ticket : I should have checked the GL first!
I went to GitHub looking for the source spec or ODD…
In https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/blob/dev/P5/Source/Specs/att.citing.xml
found my answer (but with some kind of inversion I guess. So maybe all that
was not completely unuseful…
<valItem ident="column">
the element identifies
an entry number or label in a list of entries.
</valItem>
identifies a column.
</valItem>
sorry again
best
Emmanuelle
De: Elliott Tom paregorios@users.sf.net paregorios@users.sf.net
Répondre: [epidoc:feature-requests]
129@feature-requests.epidoc.p.re.sf.net
129@feature-requests.epidoc.p.re.sf.net
Date: 17 octobre 2017 at 17:24:01
À: [epidoc:feature-requests] 129@feature-requests.epidoc.p.re.sf.net
129@feature-requests.epidoc.p.re.sf.net
Sujet: [epidoc:feature-requests] #129 additional default attribute value
suggestions for biblScope@unit
I agree that we should retain "entry" and the other values currently
inherited from the TEI: volume, issue, page, line, chapter, part, column,
entry.
[feature-requests:#129]
https://sourceforge.net/p/epidoc/feature-requests/129/ additional default
attribute value suggestions for biblScope@unit
Status: unread
Group: 8.24
Labels: schema
Created: Thu Oct 05, 2017 09:46 PM UTC by Tom Elliott
Last Updated: Tue Oct 17, 2017 02:55 PM UTC
Owner: nobody
The current EpiDoc schema inherits some "suggested" values for @unit on
biblScope (and other citation-related elements). These suggested values are
inherited from the TEI
http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.citing.html,
but EpiDoc workshop participants note that a number of additional values
(common to epigraphic publication), could usefully be added:
Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
https://sourceforge.net/p/epidoc/feature-requests/129/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
Related
Request Features:
#129I think this is a simple decision: which of the long-ish list of suggestions from Markup should we set in stone (or at least wet clay) as EpiDoc recommended values. Also make sure this is documented in the Guidelines, making clear that this is an open, not closed, list.
Bumped -> Future.
Bumped -> Future.
Scott to determine final list in accordance with discussion during ticket sprint call on 2020-06-16.
@sarcanon Do you plan to have this implemented by September 2020 (as per the [Milestone:9.2] assignment)?
Implemented.