workflow for identifying epidoc enhancements

[balmas]

See PerseusDL/canonical#155

[PonteIneptique]

In what way is it an issue for tei conversion tools ? Shouldn't it be an issue on Epidoc ?

[balmas]

yes, I'm working through this ... :) forget this approach

[PonteIneptique]

:')

[simonastoyanova]

This leads back to my question from a couple of weeks ago about building a
Perseus schema/ODD/whatever-you-want-to-call-it on top of the EpiDoc one,
since obviously a schema for inscriptions doesn't cover everything that a
print edition has. Bridget, what are you thinking for the castList in the
short term?

On 12 November 2015 at 14:09, Thibault Clérice notifications@github.com
wrote:

:')

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#39 (comment)
.

Simona Stoyanova
Research Associate

Digital Humanities
Department of Computer Science
University of Leipzig
Augustusplatz 10
04109 Leipzig, Germany

[balmas]

yes, we need to participate in that effort with @hcayless but I propose that we should gather the requirements rather than submitting piecemeal to the epidoc community.

I've suggested we follow this workflow:

https://github.com/PerseusDL/tei-conversion-tools/wiki/EpiDoc-Conversions#what-if-a-mapping-is-missing-for-a-tei-tag

But now I have decided to reopen this issue, under a revised title, to make sure this workflow makes senses to everyone who is interested and have tagged those who might be :)

@PonteIneptique @lcerrato @hcayless @simonastoyanova @TDBuck

[simonastoyanova]

Thanks for opening this again! And I agree.

On 12 November 2015 at 15:00, Bridget Almas notifications@github.com
wrote:

Reopened #39 #39
.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#39 (comment)
.

Simona Stoyanova
Research Associate

Digital Humanities
Department of Computer Science
University of Leipzig
Augustusplatz 10
04109 Leipzig, Germany