BPG Feedback on Complete Draft

Back to GBP

The main sections of the BPG are outlined below to facilitate orderly feedback :-). Please provide feedback by Saturday, April 11th so Kevin and I have enough time to compile any of the more significant issues for discussion during our upcoming meeting on April 14th.

Add each new comment as a bullet point and be sure to attribute comments so we know how to follow-up if there's some debate. For example:


 * feedback blah blah, Mdalmau

Introduction

 * Task Force w/c though historically correct may lose context in this new revision. Consider something more generic like "Working Group" or past tense: "the Task Force attempted to make these ..." Mdalmau

General Recommendations

 * Conisder moving facsimile page image info here as the final bullet point. Mdalmau

Linking between encoded text and images of source documents

 * Consider moving this text up under the General Rec. section. Mdalmau
 * Do we need to say this: "The examples below use the former method." And do we want all examples to use @facs? I think we should mix it up since we are recommending both options. Mdalmau
 * Kevin suggested that we need more info for how to use xml:id with METS. I am not quite sure how to do this at-a-glance and any attempt at detail will lead us into a significant discussion about METS.  Here are some things we can say, but may not all of them (and hopefully Chris P. can provide some guidance):
 * Use xml:id to locate content but not explicit representation of content
 * fileSec used to explicitly list all the images (master, jpg, pdf)
 * structMap orders the pages by page break and references each image defined in fileSec Mdalmau


 * I changed 'the Open Access Initiative (OAI)" to "the Open Archives Initiative (OAI)". Unless there is another initiative that I do not know about.Natasha

General Level 3 Recommendations

 * Need to explain more about how to encode end-of-division notes. They need an n= attribute, but they also need a ptr in the text.
 * Use of the "n" attribute for  should be optional. Remove from example? Or add optional information to the table? Mdalmau (reported by Rich)

Basic Structure: Verse
I am afraid that our examples for level 3 and level 4 verse are not that different. Level 3 verse has n= attribute for  element, while level 4 verse does not. Thoughts? Natasha

LEVEL 4: Basic Content Analysis
and examples are too dense for a bullet point. We may need to find a better place for this. Mdalmau
 * For name tagging, recommend the use of @ref when the target is web accessible and @key when not. Mdalmau
 * Matt has provided an @key example; some possible debate about where the explanation appears in the Header Mdalmau
 * Moved Name Tagging recommendations from bullet point under General Recommendations to its own section. The explanation

Level 4 Letters

 * This text conflates personal letters (epistles) with situations where one text is embedded within another. These topics should be dealt with separately since there are encoding projects that encode personal correspondence only (where letters are not embedded within other texts), and there are cases of non-epistles included within frame texts. (Kshawkin)