#518 state (or model.*StateLike) should contain precision

[Frederik Elwert]

This bug report is a follow-up on the discussion found in https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=tei-l;fc2bf4f.1307.

Bug #585 contains a proposal to deal with fuzzy dates:

<state from="1382" to="1477">
   <precision match="@from" atLeast="1382" atMost="1430"/>
   <precision match="@to" atLeast="1444"  atMost="1477"/>
   <p>Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East.</p> 
</state>

That report only covers the addition of att.ranging to precision. But in addition to implement that proposal, it is also necessary to allow state to contain precision. In order to cover all possible uses of state-like elements, I propose to add precision to all of model.orgStateLike, model.persStateLike and model.placeStateLike.

[James Cummings]

Pending council agreement, making green and assigning to Peter Stadler at F2F Raleigh 2014-11-17

[James Cummings]

Council agrees.

[Peter Stadler]

The request is to add "precision to all of model.orgStateLike, model.persStateLike and model.placeStateLike". The elements in question are:

• affiliation
• age
• climate
• education
• faith
• floruit
• langKnowledge
• location
• nationality
• occupation
• persName
• population
• residence
• sex
• socecStatus
• state
• terrain
• trait
• bloc
• country
• district
• geogName
• placeName
• region
• settlement

The most already allow for precision via macro.phraseSeq.limited or macro.phraseSeq. The elements with a more complex content model are:

• climate
• langKnowledge
• location
• population
• state
• terrain
• trait

My thoughts so far:

• location seems easy. It could simply be added to the <rng:choice>
• climate, terrain and population show an optional model.headLike. Should precision be added before?
• the content model of langKnowledge is a choice between one model.pLike or several <langKnown>. Should precision be added before the choice as an option?
• state and trait: quite similar to climate, terrain and population. Should precision be added as a possible first child?
• all cases: should precision rather be model.certLike to also allow for <certainty> and <respons>?

[Stefan Majewski]

Should't the path of @match be different? According to http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.scoping.html the context (node I hope) in which the @match is evaluated is defined to be the element bearing this attribute (not implicitly its parent). I haven't found a hint in tei:precision that this is in this case different.

<state from="1382" to="1477">
   <precision match="../@from" atLeast="1382" atMost="1430"/>
   <precision match="../@to" atLeast="1444"  atMost="1477"/>
   <p>Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East.</p> 
</state>

Is this just a flaw in this example or is this a general issue with the interpretation of "context"?

[Frederik Elwert]

According to the example and note on the page you cite, the “context” is
indeed the parent element, unless the @target attribute specifies
something different:

The expression of certainty applies to the nodeset identified by the
value of the target attribute, possibly modified additionally by the
value of the match attribute. If neither attribute is present, the
expression of certainty applies to the context of the certainty
element itself, i.e. its parent element.

[Stefan Majewski]

We are talking about two contexts.

1 the context referring to the interpretation of tei:precision. That
appears to be clearly the parent element of tei:precision. I completely
agree with you on that.

2 the context the @match, in the meaning defined by xpath, is interpreted
with. That was wrong and does not align to the attribute's definition.

As only the latter is problematic, and wrongly used at other places in the
guidelines' examples, Martin moved this to a separate ticket. A clearer
wording might help, though
Am 31.05.2015 11:15 schrieb "Frederik" freedo@users.sf.net:

According to the example and note on the page you cite, the “context” is
indeed the parent element, unless the @target attribute specifies
something different:

The expression of certainty applies to the nodeset identified by the
value of the target attribute, possibly modified additionally by the
value of the match attribute. If neither attribute is present, the
expression of certainty applies to the context of the certainty
element itself, i.e. its parent element.

---

• [feature-requests:#518] state (or model.StateLike) should contain
  precision

Status: open
Group: GREEN
Created: Thu Jul 10, 2014 09:40 AM UTC by Frederik
Last Updated: Sat May 30, 2015 06:45 PM UTC
Owner: Peter Stadler

This bug report is a follow-up on the discussion found in
https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=tei-l;fc2bf4f.1307.

Bug #585 https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/bugs/585 contains a proposal to
deal with fuzzy dates:

<state from="1382" to="1477">
<precision match="@from" atLeast="1382" atMost="1430"/>
<precision match="@to" atLeast="1444" atMost="1477"/>

Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East.

</state>

That report only covers the addition of att.ranging to precision. But in
addition to implement that proposal, it is also necessary to allow state
to contain precision. In order to cover all possible uses of state-like
elements, I propose to add precision to all of model.orgStateLike,
model.persStateLike and model.placeStateLike.

---

Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/518/

To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/

[Martin Holmes]

There was a definite confusion between the definition of the attribute:

supplies an arbitrary XPath expression using the syntax defined in Kay (ed.) (2007) which identifies a set of nodes, selected within the context identified by the target attribute if this is supplied, or within the context of the element bearing this attribute if it is not.

which says it's the element bearing the @match attribute, and the remark:

he expression of certainty applies to the nodeset identified by the
value of the target attribute, possibly modified additionally by the
value of the match attribute. If neither attribute is present, the
expression of certainty applies to the context of the certainty
element itself, i.e. its parent element.

We noticed this yesterday, and I'll submit a bug for it if I haven't done so already -- can't remember. :-)

[Martin Holmes]

New ticket here:

https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/bugs/761/

This is a bit of a mess.

[Peter Stadler]

implemented in [r13242] without complaints by Mr. Jenkins; tested briefly (precision in state and climate); closing!