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
calendar= should not be in att.datable #2045
Comments
Personally, I feel this ( I hope I do hear “deprecation not needed”, because deprecation is quite a pain in this case. We cannot just add Furthermore, my plan is that we keep |
@sydb What about the syntactic-sugar date elements like |
Those three (at least) are definitively not syntactic-sugar for
Examples from the Guidelines: <birth when="1960-12-10">
In a small cottage near
<name type="place">Aix-la-Chapelle</name>,
early in the morning of
<date>10 Dec 1960</date>
</birth> <death when="1960-12-10">
Passed away near
<name type="place">Aix-la-Chapelle</name>,
after suffering from cerebral palsy.
</death> Although to be fair, there are no examples of <birth when="-0044-03-20">
20 March 43 BC
<placeName>
<settlement type="city">Sulmona</settlement>
<country key="IT">Italie</country>
</placeName>
</birth> That said, I do not currently have strong feelings that they should not bear |
For the record, I think that this is absolutely a corrigible error and should not be subject to deprecation. |
Deprecation is entirely unnecessary. It makes no sense for @Calendar to be datable, unless you think decisions about which calendar is being used in a given situation might change over time, |
I don’t think that the current behaviors sanity or corrigibility should be the determining factor when it comes to the question about deprecation. If existing valid code will become invalid and require work, because of changes in this commit, those changes require a deprecation period. If dated calendars are silly and no one uses it, then no one will mourn. But deprecation seems the way to go to me. |
While it may not change your opinion, @duncdrum, I think you may be missing the point on two fronts. First, the very definition of “corrigible error” (here in TEI-land) includes that no deprecation period is required. But more importantly, although use of And, it is worth realizing, that the only difference to a wayward user who has used I think that use of something like That’s just my 2¢, though. |
@sydb The example above doesn't mean what you suggest:
which seems perfectly fine to me, especially for calendars that don't easily convert to Gregorian. |
Yes, @martindholmes, I know it doesn’t mean that. My point is if the mythical scholar in my example does think that, I would like to disavow her of that misunderstanding sooner rather than later. |
@sydb correct, it doesn’t |
With @sydb. Here's a list of elements that have it:
To summarize, only |
|
@duncdrum You're pointing at a file called "sui" containing only a But the broader point you're raising is whether durations should be datable, as opposed to dates/datetimes/date ranges/datetime ranges. I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. Are these special years defined differently from regular years, or are they just the same years we're all familiar with? Could a reader read "2 years" and wonder to themselves "I wonder what he means by years, here; are they regular years, or something weird and different that needs documenting?" |
@martindholmes they are years, it’s just that a person that is 20 years old in Canada was born in 2000, while a Chinese person was born in 2001. So in translation or other documents that go back and forth, we have to wonder all the time, how old the speaker really is. And no I missed the |
@duncdrum But the age element says nothing about when someone was born; that's irrelevant. For it to be relevant, there would have to be mention of a date on which that person was two years old, and it's that date that may need a calendar. But in that case, you should surely use custom dating attributes, wouldn't you? |
But (he asked curiously of @duncdrum) is that differnce really a calendar difference, or a cultural difference? I can, however, imagine Nonetheless, I am against providing |
When either transcribing interviews or government documents, there are often date and and age fields or statements. The above example is very much an actual use case, I as an editor need to supply this info or otherwise the two twenty year olds interviewed by me on the same date refer to different years in their accounts. |
If I understand you correctly, @duncdrum (and I well may not), that is an argument for being able to normalize the value in Seems to me using And keep in mind that if someone were, for some reason, to put a date into |
@sydb for this:
you would surely use a unitDef and a unit element to specify that these years are not earth-years. A quantity of time is not a date, I don't think; it's a measurement. A calendar is a way of specifying points on a timeline, and the timeline may be divided into units of various kinds, and you may or may not specify those dates using some of those units; but the fact that (for example) a calendar year may start on Jan 1, March 1 or March 25 doesn't change the length of a day or a year. |
It’s getting quite late here, I did a quick search for my use of I ll post some excerpts from one of my projects in the next few days so we can get this sorted.
@sydb it can if eg your event is on February 27. But the interview is on the next January 1st. In calendar a (that of the interviewer) we have completed one annual cycle and are in plus 1 territory, in calendar b (the interviewees) we haven’t completed the annual cycle and are still in +-0. This is a fairly common problem in court documents between the Chinese and the British empires, when trying to determine how much time has passed between events, or when a deadline is up for e.g. returning a colony island after 99 years. Of course the official lunar calendar doesn’t always start on March 1 but on a different day every year, making this even more fun. |
@duncdrum I still think you're confusing measurement with dating, but let's take a clear example for discussion. A Martian calendar is presumably delimited in Martian days (24 h 37 m 22.663 s in earth-time). If you're tagging a text written by a Martian, and they use the word "day", meaning a Martian day, in a sentence: On that day, he was arrested. How should we tag that word "day"? We can't tag it as a Let's say there is a unit of time called a blurg, which is a property of one Martian calendar alone, and it consists of 9 Martian days: During that blurg, he was arrested. Again, "that blurg" is a date or a date-range, and can be tagged that way. But "blurg" is still a unit, not a date. The same applies to |
Part 1: Why I think that there is a problem.As promised, here it goes. Let's ignore for a moment the xml So let's look at the OPs example: <birth when="-0044-03-20">
20 March 43 BC
<placeName>
<settlement type="city">Sulmona</settlement>
<country key="IT">Italie</country>
</placeName>
</birth> And use a similar Chinese example from the same period from one of my projects, slightly modified for comparison: <death when="-0048-01-10">
黃龍一年十日
<placeName>
<settlement type="city">長安</settlement>
<country key="CN">西漢</country>
</placeName>
</death>
<death when="-0048-01-10" when-costum="7R-1Y-10D" calendar="#chinReign" datingMethod="#chinTrad" period="#D29-E10">
黃龍一年十日
<placeName>
<settlement type="city">長安</settlement>
<country key="CN">西漢</country>
</placeName>
</death> The point is that In the above encoding I use I don't have strong feelings about which one should go into which attribute, my point is they both serve a purpose. And that allowing Now i think we can do better e.g. demanding that when |
Just to clarify: your dates have been converted to proleptic Gregorian already, right? Hence the use of |
Yes |
@duncdrum If this is the date: |
@martindholmes because I don’t have to, it’s an adaptation of @sydb example from the guidelines.
I switched |
@duncdrum But when you use |
No, |
think of a birth-certificate.
irrespective of transcription or meta-data. neither of which hinges on membership with
|
part 3 to sum upthere are problems with I do not see the class membership as an error in the first place. Certainly as something requiring deprecation. What council wants to do about the problems, if anything, is up to council. |
But a birth certificate is a document that would be transcribed in the text or sourceDoc element; it's not a piece of metadata appearing in the header or in the linked data container. So it wouldn't have |
Looking at @sydb list of elements, these can and do occur outside of the header in the text section, the Guidelines even show pseudo-prose for the contents of |
|
@martindholmes i can totally be convinced that this is a good idea, as part of more wide ranging changes about dates that increase consistency, adjust validation scenarios, and modify the guidelines prose and examples. Since this discussion started with status green, no deprecation necessary, I went by what’s in this ticket. I’m so far against the removal, but it’s not my call. But I think I stated my case, up to council what to do with it. As always thanks for the constructive discussion. |
Herein I will use I think one way to look at this is that I think it is unusual, but quite reasonable, to want to do both. I.e., to say “this object was acquired on stardate 4570.8”. But it seems to me important enough to avoid the “ <acquisition when="2327-07-28" calendar="#stardate">
A gift from <persName>Maurice Picard</persName>
to his daughter-in-law <persName>Marie Picard</persName>
in 4570.8, in celebration of her son’s birth.
</acquisition> the phrases “A gift from” and “her son’s birth” are in a calendar, or subject to different interpretations based on a calendar. I would much prefer to see <acquisition when="2327-07-28">
A gift from <persName>Maurice Picard</persName>
to his daughter-in-law <persName>Marie Picard</persName>
in <date calendar="#stardate">4570.8</date>, in celebration of
her son’s birth.
</acquisition> Am I being crazy? (Has been known to happen.) |
@sydb I agree 100%. I think a date element should be used to clarify that the |
Nope, but omitting an answer why a) mandating the following doesn’t follow from restricting <acquisition>
A gift from <persName>Maurice Picard</persName>
to his daughter-in-law <persName>Marie Picard</persName>
in <date when="2327-07-28" calendar="#stardate">4570.8</date>, in celebration of
her son’s birth.
</acquisition> And b) how to preserve the editors freedom to go easy on attributes, and have something like this available <acquisition calendar=‘#stardate’>4570.8</acquisition> Stardates, reign dates, lunar dates etc. are normalized via the
I'd say that's a reinterpretation of the data-model, the model as it is now does not say that. In fact you can read the |
btw @martindholmes it just occurred to me that we are using So in this context, i would use <acquisition calendar=‘#stardate’>4570.8</acquisition> to transcribe a document which has a Seal or stamp on which the string I.E. I ve probably been doing it wrong for all those years 🤯 |
That's exactly right. |
Hah at least we got that sorted! I ll drop the term, but will gladly continue the practice, which doesn’t strike me as that wild an approach 👺 PS: to be clear there would always also be a proper transcription in the body. |
This is basically why we believe that |
Yes I see now where you want to go. Can you also see why I think that nowhere in its spec, nor in other date and calendar prose does it say that? If editors want to use element contents in the header to mirror the data format in the document, i say let them. Also what about |
You're right that we don't specify that anywhere in particular, which is why I've been careful to say that it's my understanding of the situation rather than being necessarily the truth. And I really don't know how |
FWIW, MoEML has good documentation on how we use |
After further discussion, Council is leaning towards removing A few reasons for this based on the conversation above:
|
Council F2F decides to keep |
@raffazizzi during the update of |
The
@calendar
attribute is currently a member of att.datable, but should not be.This is because
@calendar
is, by definition, about “the date represented by the content of this element”. But among the members of att.datable we find several elements whose content is not a date (e.g.,<orgName>
or<unitDef>
), and lots of elements whose content need not include a date (e.g.,<acquisition>
or<climate>
).So it is clear to Council that
@calendar
should split out of att.datable. There are some issues still to be resolved, however:@calendar
be put into a class of its own? (My vote is “yes”)@calendar
and which should lose it?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: