Content model of rdgGrp

[hcayless]

See discussion on the TEI List <app> of multiple lemmata. The content model of <rdgGrp> does not permit <lem> followed by <rdgGrp>, which seems like a plausible thing to want to do.

[ebeshero]

@hcayless just a quick note of your last comment in the listserv thread, which suggests possible reasons why we haven't implemented <lem> in <rdgGrp>: https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1807&L=TEI-L&D=0&P=23802

[schassan]

I become aware of this very problem only now (mainly because I never really used app at all), but couldn't one claim that a lem has a very different ontological status from a rdg? The lem can be backed up by an existing witness but it doesn't necessarily have to. Thus I would dare say, a lem is no subclass of a rdg, moreover no reading at all. And thus lem probably shouldn't be allowed as child of rdgGrp at all? As the note in the definition points out:

Note that only one lem element may appear within a single apparatus entry

(my emphasis)
Thus, one and only one lem should be allowed inside of app, not inside of rdgGrp?

[hcayless]

Doing a ticket sweep and seeing that this got no followup after I dropped off the radar last year. I assume it wasn't discussed in Tokyo, perhaps because it wasn't properly flagged.

I've a fair amount of sympathy for the "there can be only one" rule for <lem>, but I know, e.g. @MarjorieBurghart pushed back strongly against disallowing it. My own feeling is that best practice is to use <lem> only when you have a base text, to represent the reading of that base text, and otherwise to use <rdg>. I just followed up on the discussion that prompted this, and see that, as @ebeshero noted, we didn't end up with a solid conclusion that this was worth pursuing. I'm leaning towards closing the ticket.

[hcayless]

Circling back around to this as I look at #1845, and I'm wondering why the content model of <rdgGrp> is so weird. Couldn't it be more like the content model of <app>?

[hcayless]

Council thinks the content model of rdgGrp can be like that of app, and that there's no reason not to do this. We should make sure there's a health warning making clear the issues around having multiple lems

[hcayless]

Done, so closing.