Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Textual basis of the letter #5

Open
StefanDumont opened this issue Oct 29, 2015 · 7 comments
Open

Textual basis of the letter #5

StefanDumont opened this issue Oct 29, 2015 · 7 comments
Labels

Comments

@StefanDumont
Copy link
Contributor

@StefanDumont StefanDumont commented Oct 29, 2015

Gabriele Radecke from the Fontane-Arbeitsstelle at the Georg August University in Göttingen, request a possibility to mark the type of the textual basis of the letter in CMIF. Because in the use-case of her project (Fontane's notebooks), she has just concepts of letters and cannot always verify whether these concepts were really (and unchanged) sent or not.

@rettinghaus
Copy link

@rettinghaus rettinghaus commented Oct 30, 2015

From my perspective in these cases the letter neither has been sent nor received. But after all it is a 'correspondence action'. So probably a <correspAction type="concept"> would be appropriate. <persName> should state the writer of the concept, while any proposed addressee is merely a person 'just' mentioned and should thus be encoded in the proposed correspDesc/note.
@evidence wouldn't be the right choice at this point as far as I understand the TEI Guidelines correctly.

@Martin-de-la-Iglesia
Copy link

@Martin-de-la-Iglesia Martin-de-la-Iglesia commented Feb 19, 2019

Has there been any progress in this issue?
If I understand https://digiversity.net/2015/perspectives-of-the-further-development-of-the-correspondence-metadata-interchange-format-cmif/ (section "Textual Basis") correctly, the idea is to use a letter concept as the source of information for a letter that was actually sent. Thus the sender wouldn't necessarily be the same person as the one who wrote the concept, and the sent/received date would be in the future.

@Martin-de-la-Iglesia
Copy link

@Martin-de-la-Iglesia Martin-de-la-Iglesia commented Sep 24, 2019

After reconsidering the @evidence proposal at last week's SIG meeting, I for one would be fine with this approach. Any progress would be welcome, really.

@rettinghaus
Copy link

@rettinghaus rettinghaus commented Oct 3, 2019

I'm still not convinced of using @evidence for this. Why not use @type (and @subtype) on <correspDesc>? They're already allowed in TEI, and this way we could be more precise about details, e.g.

<correspDesc type="print" subtype="partial">

On the other hand, this would go along well with @type on <correspAction>.

@rettinghaus
Copy link

@rettinghaus rettinghaus commented Oct 3, 2019

And yes: Any progress would be welcome, really.

@StefanDumont
Copy link
Contributor Author

@StefanDumont StefanDumont commented Jan 11, 2020

See current propsal on CMIF v2: https://encoding-correspondence.bbaw.de/v1/CMIF.html (please note the annotation function via Hypothes.is)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.