Content model of <institution>, <repository> and <collection>

[jakub-simek]

Would it please be possible to change the content model of the elements <institution>, <repository> and <collection> which are used as children of <msIdentifier> and <altIdentifier> in manuscript descriptions?

At the moment, the content model of macro.xtext allows for character data only. In manuscript descriptions it may however be desirable to provide a more structured content for these three elements, e.g. with structured names, similar to the content of other sibling elements allowed in <msIdentifier> and <altIdentifier>, e.g. <country> and <settlement>.

To give an example, inside of <institution>, the manuscript cataloguer might like to use <orgName> and <idno>, the latter for stating an authority data identifier.

I therefore propose changing the content model of the three elements from

<content>
 <macroRef key="macro.xtext"/>
</content>

to

<content>
 <macroRef key="macro.phraseSeq"/>
</content>

so that these three elements could be treated similarly as the members of model.placeNamePart allowed as siblings of the three elements in question inside of <msIdentifier> and <altIdentifier>.

[PietroLiuzzo]

Could you give an example of where this would be necessary?

[jakub-simek]

Here is a full example for <msIdentifier>, where <institution>, <repository> and <collection> have a more structured content, as I think it would be desirable. At the moment, such content is not allowed.

         <msDesc>
            <msIdentifier>
               <country>
                  <placeName xml:lang="en">Germany</placeName>
                  <placeName xml:lang="de">Deutschland</placeName>
                  <idno type="GND">http://d-nb.info/gnd/4011882-4</idno>
                  <idno type="VIAF">http://viaf.org/viaf/1148632918130630001</idno>
               </country>
               <settlement>
                  <placeName xml:lang="en">Munich</placeName>
                  <placeName xml:lang="de">München</placeName>
                  <idno type="GND">http://d-nb.info/gnd/4127793-4</idno>
               </settlement>
               <institution>
                  <orgName xml:lang="en">Bavarian State Library</orgName>
                  <orgName xml:lang="de">Bayerische Staatsbibliothek</orgName>
                  <orgName xml:lang="de" type="abbreviated">BSB</orgName>
                  <idno type="GND">http://d-nb.info/gnd/2031351-2</idno>
               </institution>
               <repository>
                  <orgName xml:lang="en">Bavarian State Library, Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books</orgName>
                  <orgName xml:lang="de">Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Abteilung für Handschriften und Seltene Drucke</orgName>
                  <idno type="GND">http://d-nb.info/gnd/1231629-5</idno>
               </repository>
               <collection>
                  <name xml:lang="lat">Codices latini monacenses</name>
                  <name xml:lang="lat" type="abbreviated">Clm</name>
                  <name xml:lang="de">Lateinische Handschriften</name>
                  <idno type="URL">https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?projekt=1157467155</idno>
               </collection>
               <msName>
                  <name xml:lang="lat">Codex Buranus</name>
               </msName>
               <idno>Clm 4660</idno>
            </msIdentifier>
         </msDesc>

[holfordm]

This request makes sense to me - these are often organizations or other names and should be able to contain name-related elements. It would be possible (and more efficient) to use the @key or @ref attributes on institution, repository and collection to point to a separate authority record that contained the variant names and idno values, but perhaps not every project will want to use authority records in this way.

[PietroLiuzzo]

wouldn't this be a modification one does in the local schema?

[sydb]

@PietroLiuzzo — it certainly could be a modification one does in a local schema. And it would be quite reasonable for @jakub-simek to do so now whether or not TEI adopts this practice later. (Ask me off-ticket if you want help with that, @jakub-simek.) But fewer extensions (and this kind of customization is an extension: a new content model that accepts things the old one did not) means easier interchange of manuscript descriptions. So doing this in the TEI, as opposed to a local customization of TEI, is better if there are either a) a lot of projects who want to do it, or b) very few projects who would be harmed by it. Sadly, defining (b) can be quite difficult.

In any case, I want to hear from those who originally thought <institution>, <repository>, and <collection> should be macro.xtext as to why they think that restriction is a good idea. (Yes, I mean you @lb42, @djbpitt, and Matthew Driscoll.)

[jakub-simek]

I am aware of the possibility to change the content model in a customized ODD. Documents adhering to such a schema would not be TEI conformant, however. In this case, I think that the extension of the content model in TEI itself would improve the manuscript description module, that's why I have proposed it here.
I agree with @sydb that it would be important to hear the reasons why macro.xtext was chosen for these three elements in the first place.

[sydb]

… change the content model in a customized ODD. Documents adhering to such a schema would not be TEI conformant, however.

I don’t want to drag this ticket into the swamp of conformance, but suffice it to say the above statement is not universally agreed. Many of us think such extensions are conformant.

[scstanley7]

Council agrees with this and we are going to make the content macro.phraseSeq.limited instead of macro.phraseSeq (includes the listed elements, but excludes some other unnecessary things).