#132 Add @who to <quote>

RED
closed
nobody
5
2009-04-02
2008-06-21
brettz9
No

Hi,

Since <quote> is only a more specific case of <q> and since, with @who in att.ascribed being described as indicating "the person, or group of people, to whom the element content is ascribed", I think it makes a lot of sense to allow @who on <quote> as well, since it must be common to wish to indicate to whom a quote is ascribed (even if no information in the text is present to be used to create a <cit> instead).

Of all the more specific versions of <q>, <quote> is probably the only one I see which needs @who, and as a more specific tag, I think it is more appropriate for a semantically-rich project to use <quote> than the more general <q> unless there is some reason for maintaining the ambiguity.

From a practical standpoint, being able to extract or otherwise query all of the quotations in a specific document by a specific person or organization is a very useful possibility.

Thanks!

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2008-08-17
    • milestone: --> 871209
     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2008-08-17
    • milestone: 871209 --> RED
     
  • Syd Bauman

    Syd Bauman - 2008-08-23

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=686243
    Originator: NO

    I agree wholeheartedly with the underlying motivation, but disagree with the surface syntax. A <quote> is quoting a literary source, not a person directly (for which <said> is used). So although it is *really* important to be able to indicate where a quotation came from, who= (which should typically point to a <person>, <personGrp>, or a <role>) is not the right mechanism.

    Rather, I think there should be a cit= attribute added to <quote>, which is one or more data.pointer, each of which points to a <bibl>, <biblStruct>, or <biblFull>.

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    I understand... So can we add a @cit attribute to <quote> then?

     
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Can <q/> be used with @who if it is known to be written but the source is unknown? (e.g., "Baha'u'llah wrote...."). Our project which has numerous such attributions where we want to indicate the author, but might not have a source.

    And if <q/> can be used in this way, wouldn't <quote/> work as well?

    I would think that there should be a non-overlapping counterpart to <said>, and if <written/> is not used, then I would think for clarity and consistency <quote/> could fill this role, merely implying that the quotation was written. The presence of <cit/> with <quote/> would be the means of indicating a known source to the written attribution. So @who could just indicate ascription, whether spoken or written.

    (If not, I suppose, the proposed @cit could be targeted to a simple <bibl><author/></bibl> when the citation details were unknown...)

    (You also have the question of <signed/> too, which might fit best under <said/> unless it were recorded signing, which raises the question of whether <live> and <recorded> would be better to distinguish between all of these, including say instant messaging and emails, live blackboard communications vs. static ones, etc.)

     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2009-04-02

    The difference between q and quote is that a quote is attributed to a bibliographic source, not a person. We think attribution for quote should be done by <cit>

     
  • Lou Burnard

    Lou Burnard - 2009-04-02
    • status: open --> closed