#10 <interp>


Please make <interp> non-empty, thereby allowing for
specifying 'values' containing additional markup.


  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2004-09-19

    Logged In: YES

    The value= attribute of <interp> and <span> is one of the
    ones to deal with in our quest to rid TEI of "content textual
    attributes". I see two possible ways of thinking about the
    value of
    value=. First, we might think of it as being used to provide,
    directly, the interpretation of the indicated element(s).
    Second, it
    might be thought of as a key which is used to look up the actual
    interpretation, possibly in the human readers' mind.

    If the first is the case, it obviously makes sense to make
    the value=
    attribute a child of <interp> or <span> instead.
    Possibilities for
    the child include:

    * Zero or more characters, without markup. Does not satisfy
    Andreas's request for allowing markup inside the value.

    * Paragraph-type content (characters plus phrase level
    i.e. the P5 equivalent of %paraContent;).

    * A new element, e.g. <value>, created for this purpose.
    very clear semantics, this has the advantage that if
    <value> is
    allowed to repeat, the elements <interpGrp> and <spanGrp>
    be dropped, in favor of permitting <interp> and <span> to
    themselves. The content of <value> would be permitted to
    phrase-level markup, giving it more expressive power than an
    attribute, and satisfying Andreas's request.

    * A <p> (or perhaps <seg> or <ab>), or perhaps one or more of
    them. This has the advantage of using an already existing

    In all of these cases the intent is that the interpretation is
    written out long hand, as it were. So one can imagine rather
    just "foreshadowing", an interpretation with more detail:
    "foreshadowing <name key="LS">Luke</name>'s return to <place
    key="YP">Dagobah</place> in <rs key="SWE6RotJ">episode 6</rs>."

    One can easily imagine, of course, that folks would use this for
    other things, e.g. for commentary on the interpretation
    itself, or
    for explanations of why other interpretations were
    dismissed, etc. It
    is not at all clear to me whether such use would be a good
    thing or a
    bad thing, an argument in favor or against this permissiveness.

    If the second possibility (that the value of value= should
    be thought
    of as a key used to look up the interpretation) is the case,
    then the
    value of value= (e.g., "aftermath") should not be thought of
    as a
    complete interpretation itself, but rather as a key with
    which the
    user can determine the interpretation, e.g. via a computer table
    look-up or by knowing what the word means in a natural
    language (sort
    of a table look-up in the brain, as it were). The actual
    interpretation could be spelled out somewhere ("the section
    of the
    narative following the climax which describes the negative
    results of
    the protaganists' actions" -- OK, I'm not a literature
    scholar, you
    get the idea) or left open to interpretation. In the former
    case, the
    value itself is just a string; it may be purposefully
    designed to
    resemble a word in some natural language, but as far as computer
    systems are concerned could just as well be a random
    sequence. In the
    latter case some mnemonic string is used to jog a reader's
    memory, as
    it were. In neither of these cases does using internal
    markup seem to
    be necessary of even make sense.

    On the other hand, if value= is just a key into a (computer or
    mental) table lookup, why not call it key=? For that matter,
    why not
    permit it to actually point directly to the full
    interpretation (by
    being a URI)? In which case the full itnerpretation could
    contain any
    kind of markup you like, i.e. might even be in a markup language
    other than TEI.

  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2004-09-22
    • priority: 5 --> 6
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2004-09-22

    Logged In: YES

    I suggest that the content of <interp> should be the
    macro.glossSeq, or some subset thereof.

    Also that <interp> probably wants to join <note> in my
    proposed tei.pervasive class

  • Andreas Nolda

    Andreas Nolda - 2004-09-27

    Logged In: YES

    Personally, I am in favour of Syd Bauman's first, direct way
    of providing a value. The second, indirect approach would
    create another indirection: say, from an "ana" reference to
    an <interp> element and from the latter's "value" to a
    look-up table.

  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2005-03-07
    • assigned_to: nobody --> sbauman
  • James Cummings

    James Cummings - 2005-03-07

    Logged In: YES

    Syd suggests there is a dichotomy here in the meaning of
    value between its use as a key and its use for containing
    the interpretation as a whole.

    I'd like to suggest that these two aren't necessarily
    mutually incompatible, and that what we should do is cater
    for both of them. Retain the 'value' attribute, perhaps
    renaming it 'key', and have the content of <interp> contain
    the tei.pervasive note-like interpretation. To use Syd's

    <interp id="LukeDago1" resp="SB" key="foreshadow">
    This foreshadows <name key="LS">Luke</name>'s return to
    <place key="YP">Dagobah</place> in
    <rs key="SWE6RotJ">episode 6</rs>.

    This allows markup in the interpretation, and a key by which
    all instances of foreshadowing (or whatever) can easily be
    pulled out. I certainly wouldn't want to do away with a
    key-like attribute. (However, it could be argued that @n /
    @type could be misappropriated for this.) The example in P4
    15.3 uses @id/@ana for this because, I believe, it wants to
    highlight that it "does not itself indicate which passage of
    text is being interpreted; the same interpretive structures
    can thus be associated with many passages of the text".
    This does not mean that someone should not use it to provide
    more specific interpretations rather than a general "there
    is some foreshadowing here".

    The element does seem to be part of those which are
    "descriptive or identifying elements which characterize and
    object[ify]", and so unless I'm misunderstanding it, Lou's
    suggestion of macro.glossSeq makes sense.

    Of course, if @value was renamed @key, then that might
    create some possible confusion with the way @key is used
    elsewhere, esp. in tei.entries.
    This @key-like attribute could be provided on interGrp, but
    then would this necessitate that the <interp> all be grouped
    together, rather than allowing for the possibility of
    dynamically grouping interpretations together in some way?

    My two pence,


  • John A. Walsh

    John A. Walsh - 2005-03-08

    Logged In: YES

    I am in general agreement that <interp> should not be empty and should
    contain markup. This would allow the interp element to be used for
    extended interpretations, rather than just simple ones like
    @value="introduction", @value="conflict", and @value="climax".

    If the purpose of making <interp> non-empty is to allow for more detailed,
    extended interpretations, then the content should allow multiple paragraphs.
    An interpretation, even of a short span of text, could easily require more
    than one paragraph.

    With <interp> non-empty, we can lose @value altogether. The content of
    <interp> will be come the "value" of the interpretation, and so there is no
    longer a need for @value.

    James proposes a possible @key attribute, " by which all instances of
    foreshadowing (or whatever) can easily be pulled out," but also suggests
    that "@n / @type could be misappropriated for this." I think @n and @type
    can be useful here without being misappropriated. Interpretations don't
    seem to me to be uniquely identifiable things, like people, places, etc. for
    which @key is more commonly used (<name>, <persName>,
    <placeName>, etc.). And neither is the sort key use of @key in dictionary
    elements relevant here. The @value examples used in the p4 guidelines
    ("introduction," "conflict," "climax," "revenge," etc.) seem to be generic
    names or types of interpretations, so @n and @type seem very suitable.

  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2005-03-10

    Logged In: YES

    [Note: I am presuming that everything we say here about the
    content of <interp> applies equally well to <span>. Correct
    me (quickly) if I'm wrong or you disagree.]

    So, it seems that Lou Burnard, James Cummings, and John
    Walsh all agree with Andreas Nolda (the OP) that <interp>
    should have content. (Although some want to keep a "short
    name of the interpretation" attribute as well.) But the
    question (which I asked the Council to consider this week)
    is what should the content model of <interp> be?

    Lou, can you explain why you think one or more of the
    members of macro.glossSeq (altIdent?, equiv*, gloss?, desc?)
    would be appropriate? Given the desire that the content of
    <interp> be a direct description, I'm not sure that either
    <altIdent> or <equiv> make sense whatsoever. <gloss> and
    <desc> make some sense, although <gloss> is a bit of a
    stretch, and has only phrase-level content. That leaves
    <desc>, which has the mild disadvantage that we'd need to
    realign its semantics a bit. And, as has been pointed out
    here, it is reasonable to believe that more than one
    paragraph level thing would be needed, so if we were to use
    <desc> instead of <p>, it (the content model of <interp>)
    should probably be ( desc+ ), no?

    Also, with respect to where it goes, I don't know the
    details of your proposed tei.pervasive class, but I'm
    guessing it would be where things that can go in lots of
    places, but not just anywhere (like tei.Incl) would go. In
    which case, why would <interp> need to be in it? It doesn't
    need to be permissible in lots of places. Since the ana=
    attribute of elements in the text point to <interp>, it
    could be anywhere (including in a different file); since the
    from=, to=, (and interp=) attributes of <span> point to an
    element or elements in the text, it could be anywhere. Seems
    to me the Guidelines should simply say where they're
    supposed to be, period.

    James suggests a key= for <interp>. John suggests that n=
    and type= are suitable for this purpose. I like the idea of
    retaining an attribute value for this purpose. I think key=
    is probably not quite right, and that n= is simply a bad
    idea -- this is not a label. But type= makes a lot of sense.
    My only concern is that if we appropriate type= to be used
    for a general classification of an interpretation (where the
    content is used for a detailed description of it), are we
    robbing people of the ability to use type= of <interp> for
    some other useful purpose? I.e., is there reason to believe
    that users will want both type= and
    that-which-used-to-be-value= as separate attributes? I'm
    inclined to think not, but there may be counter examples ...

  • Natasha Smith

    Natasha Smith - 2005-03-13

    Logged In: YES

    I still need more time to think about some issues, but thought
    that it might be better to break the silence and to share what I
    thought over by now. I will not take your time repeating
    already expressed positions that I share, but will simply try to
    recap my opinion:

    - <interp> should not be an empty element and should have

    - I would be more comfortable with key= being used in cases
    already mentioned by John W., not in the <interp> content
    model (type= or value= are much more appropriate for that).

    - value= vs. type= and whether to allow both of them in the
    content model? I couldnt think about any examples why one
    would need both atts and suggest to keep type= for this
    purpose (*if* there is a question of choosing one).

    - id= and resp= remain in the content model.

    - I didnt completely understand Lous suggestion why the
    <interp> content model should be macro.glossSeq, though it
    sounds quite interesting. According to the Guidelines,
    [macro.glossSeq] defines a sequence of descriptive or
    identifying elements which characterize and object, while
    <interp> is described to be one of the simplest mechanisms
    for attaching analytic notes [] to particular passages of
    text and associating simple analyses and interpretations
    with text elements. Close match, ah?. On the other hand, as
    the element <interp> being a description on its own, I would
    consider ( p+ ) more appropriate for its content, instead of
    (desc+ ) where <desc> contains a brief description of the
    purpose and application for an element, attribute, or attribute
    value. Isn't it too close of a match?

  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2005-03-14
    • labels: --> TEI: New or Changed Element
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2005-03-14

    Logged In: YES

    My suggestion of macro.glossSeq as content for <interp> was
    just based on the observation that <interp> is a metadata
    kind of an element, which one might want to gloss,
    equivalence, or describe in the same way as (e.g.) a TEI
    class or an element.

    On the question of using TYPE or VALUE or KEY, I think
    consistency is desirable. TYPE is usually used in the TEI
    to indicate a broad classification of some sort (as for
    example on divisions or lists); VALUE or KEY to indicate
    some unique or semi-unique value. So I would expect to see
    things like <interp type="narrative" value="resolution"/> or
    <interp type="morphosyntactic-class" value="nounSingular"/>

    I am agnostic about James's question as to whether we should
    go on supporting use of value (or key) to supply a code for
    the intended contents. To slightly muddy the water, I have
    just remembered that P4 has examples of hierarchically
    nested <interpGrp>s -- for example,
    <interpGrp type="morphosyntactic-class" value="nominal">
    <interpGrp type="number">
    <interp value="singular"/>
    <interp value="plural"/>
    <interpGrp type="properNess">
    <interp value="common"/>
    <interp value="proper"/>

    Here the advantages of using the attribute value/single
    token approach seem evident.

  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2005-03-15

    Logged In: YES

    I've just re-read this artifact, and am thinking that the
    following probably makes the most sense:

    element interp {
    attribute value { datatype.Code }?,

    That is, an optional value= attribute and content of zero or
    more <p>s. It should be a syntactic error to specify neither
    value= nor any <p> content, but ODD can't enforce this. It
    should be syntactically valid to specify both, but it would
    be a semantic error if value= were, say, "conclusion", but
    the <p> content discussed something entirely different.

    The "datatype.Code" means that the value= attribute is
    intended to be restricted by the user to a set of discrete
    codes, but TEI does not dictate what those codes should be.

  • Christian Wittern

    Logged In: YES

    I completely agree with Syd's suggestion. p+ seems to be
    the most natural content model to me, and the attributes
    also make sense as discussed. If somebody needs "key" for
    specific purposes, that c/should be added as a local extension.


  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2005-03-16

    Logged In: YES

    Sorry, but I disagree with Syd's proposed content model,
    which would *require* at least one para within an <interp>.
    Even if amended to p* (which is probably what is intended),
    I don't think it's appropriate for a structured element like
    interp to contain just prose (which can, of course, have all
    sorts of other things within it -- such as <interp>s!). It
    should be treated in the same way as all other formerly
    empty elements to which we are now giving conrtent: we
    should be trying to identify elements with semantics as
    close as possible to those of the original attributes. The
    old <interp> element did not have a "write a short essay
    here" attribute, but specifically proposed attributes for
    responsibility, type of interpretation, and "value" of
    interpretation. Andreas' desire to include markup in the
    "value" attribute is reasonable enough; extending the
    meaning of this element to make it support general purpose
    descriptive prose, i.e. to function as a <note>, seems to me
    to be a diversion from what this element is designed for:
    i.e. the definition of fairly precise interpretive
    catagoeries that can be linked to from a text and/or grouped
    together hierarchically.

    My proposal is that the content model should be
    (desc, equiv*)

    This gives us consistency with several other things (e.g.
    value lists, element specs) which combine a short prose
    description with zero or more pointers to equivalent
    components in other ontologies.

    AsI said before, it's possible that we might want other
    things from the macro.glossSeq , but that's the minimum I
    see as necessary.

  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2005-03-16

    Logged In: YES

    Lou is correct, I meant "p*", not "p+", as my description
    confirms. In any case, I agree with Lou that it would be
    better to have something somewhat more specific than a bag
    of prose. <desc> is a good candidate. The problem with
    <desc> is that it is part of the tagset for tagset
    documentation & extension, not the tagset for simple
    analysis. Do we want to put <desc> in the core?
    I think I'd like <equiv> if anyone could give me a real
    explanation of what it is. :-)
    In haste

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    <desc> is in the core, so no problem using that.

  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2005-03-17

    Logged In: YES

    Good point thank you, whoever that was; I stand corrected,
    <desc> is in the core. We'd have to tweak its semantics a
    bit, but I'm in favor. I like Lou's
    desc, equiv*
    better than my
    even though it doesn't really solve Lou's complaint that
    it's "just prose", as <desc> can contain the same set of
    stuff as <p>. But at least there's only one of 'em, and the
    sematics are (or at least will be :-) more precise.

  • jflanders

    jflanders - 2005-03-18

    Logged In: YES

    Lou's point that <interp> has to be clearly more than just an opportunity for
    annotation is a good one. <interp> should be a way of applying some sort
    of interpretive *scheme*, i.e. an analysis in which the group of <interp>
    elements in themselves might tell you something about the nature of the
    analysis. It should be structured and should not suggest that this is a
    place for a prose essay.
    <desc> and <equiv> seem different from what Andreas originally had in
    mind, namely a set of values (not semantically different from the value
    attribute). I think we still need a <value> element to carry the actual
    interpretive item (that is, the bit of the overall interpretive which is being
    applied at a given point in the text). This would give us:
    <value>The value of the interpretation (would have been value=
    <desc>An optional, more verbose explanation of what this value means
    or how it fits into the interpretive scheme</desc>
    <equiv>Optionally, the equivalent of this interpretive chunk in some
    other scheme(s)</equiv>

  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2005-03-19

    Logged In: YES

    Julia's post and the opportunity to see some of OP's actual
    use cases has convinced me that we are slipping down a slope
    we should have avoided in the first place. We are not trying
    to make the tagset for simple analysis complicated, we
    should be trying to keep it simple, but to remove the
    restriction that the "value" of the interpretation be
    expressed in an attribute value, in case, e.g., it contains
    non-Unicode characters (not likely) or is expressed in a
    foreign language or contains a persons' name or some such. I
    am now thinking the content of <interp> (and <span>) should
    be macro.paraContent. Simple, straightforward; does the job;
    easy to implement, easy to understand.
    Projects that know in advance they are not going to use
    encoding in the value of <interp> could change its content
    from "macro.paraContent" to "text", or better yet to a
    closed value list, to get the benefits of tighter validation.
    This does, however, permit lots of pointless elements inside
    <interp>. It also permits <interp>s and <span>s (and
    <interpGrp>s and <spanGrp>s) inside <interp>, which some
    might consider a good thing.
    Perhaps the content should really be what is called for:
    ( text | g | foreign )*

  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2005-07-07

    Logged In: YES

    I have changed the content to macro.paraContent for the
    moment, as being the least worst of the various alternatives
    proposed below, and in step with EDW90. I've removed the
    value attribute too.

    Next stop should be to do much the same to span, but maybe
    that needs more thought...

  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2005-07-07
    • assigned_to: sbauman --> louburnard
    • status: open --> closed

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.

No, thanks