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

schema updates from BQG records #73

Closed
wlpotter opened this issue May 12, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

schema updates from BQG records #73

wlpotter opened this issue May 12, 2020 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@wlpotter
Copy link
Contributor

wlpotter commented May 12, 2020

The following changes are being proposed to the schema based on batch validating the Beth Qatraye records.

Please post questions and discussion as needed.

@dlschwartz
Copy link

@wlpotter @davidamichelson I've been thinking that our place types should get URIs instead of the status quo. Would this be a time to make that change or should we simply update the current list and move everything to URIs down the line when the taxonomy develops?

@wlpotter
Copy link
Contributor Author

To clarify the issue with the tei:ref elements as children of tei:location: this is not associated with the bibl issue. Rather, the use of tei:ref elements with @target attributes pointing to place URIs facilitates internal hyperlinking, i.e. within the BQG, and linked data with the Syriac Gazetteer records. The TEI for the example looks like this:

<location type="relative" source="#bib4156-6">A city located 
    <measure unit="farasikh" quantity="7">seven farsakh</measure>
    <offset>north of</offset> 
    <ref target="https://bqgazetteer.bethmardutho.org/place/4155">
        <placeName ref="http://syriaca.org/place/4155">al-Aḥsāʾ</placeName>
     </ref> 
...
</location>

See, still, the discussion in #25

Since this solution was specific to the BQG, the schema change will not need to be ported to the Syriac Gazetteer schema. (this of course raises the question of when and how we will want to split off the BQG schema from the general schema).

@davidamichelson
Copy link

@dlschwartz We would like to discuss with you the difference between the generic Srophe schema and Syriaca's schema and if we want them to differ and if so how much

@wlpotter
Copy link
Contributor Author

These have been broken out into
#78 #79 #80 #81 and #82

See those issues for further discussion.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants