`event` should allow `child::listOrg`

[skurzinz]

Quite in parallel to the currently allowed *ography elements within event, listOrg should be allowed.
Just imagine an event taking place between a number of orgs that should be grouped in separate listOrgs.

Currently, the presence of org is inherited from model.persLike.

Thanks to @timofruehwirth @csae8092 for reporting.

[skurzinz]

Thanks @trishaoconnor for taking this over! I think the prose does not need much adaption.

Suggestion: In https://tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ND.html#NDEVNT, in the example of #jat367 we could add

<listOrg>
         <org xml:id="jat">
            <orgName xml:lang="sr-Latn">Jugoslovenski Aerotransport</orgName>
            <orgName xml:lang="sr-Cyrl">Југословенски Аеротранспорт</orgName>
            <orgName xml:lang="en">Yugoslav Airlines</orgName>
            <orgName role="ICAO">JAT</orgName>
            <event type="start" when="1947-04-01"><desc>JAT was founded</desc></event>
            <event type="end" when="2013-08-01"><desc>JAT brand ceases to exist</desc></event>
            <note type="relation_precedes"><ptr target="#airserbia"/></note>
         </org>
         <org xml:id="airserbia">
            <orgName xml:lang="sr-Latn">Air Serbia</orgName>
            <orgName xml:lang="sr-Cyrl">Ер Србија</orgName>
            <orgName>Yugoslav Airlines</orgName>
            <orgName role="ICAO">ASL</orgName>
            <note type="relation_preceded_by"><ptr target="#jat"/></note>
         </org>
      </listOrg>

If desired I can also come up with another example in Specs/event.xml.

[raffazizzi]

Attendees (7) at Nov 25 community call agree this is a good idea! However, looking at event's content model, it's clear that list-like elements where cherry picked when the content model for event was created. Maybe the council should look at notes from councils past to figure out if there was a reason for excluding listOrg?

[trishaoconnor]

I have looked at the previous Council minutes mentioning listOrg and event and I've not yet encountered any objections to having listOrg as a child of event. Below is my humble attempt (to date) to compile some of the results which might be relevant for Council discussion on adding listOrg as a child of event:

From the 7-9 November 2011 Council minutes:

3412198: JC, MH: make

listPerson and listOrg members of model.personLike. We should add listPerson, listPlace and listOrg to

org; and add listOrg to particDesc. LB suggested creating a new model.orgPart, which would make the changes to org simpler, and adding listOrg to the content model of particDesc.

From Closed TEI issue 616: This issue added event as a child of org, I copy below a comment from the discussion which might be pertinent to this issue:

If <listEvent> can be a child of <person>, it should also be available as a child of <org>. If events happen to people they must happen to organizations too.

The mechanics of it are not quite the same; gets <listOrg> through model.personEventLike:

http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-model.persEventLike.html

Possibly also this closed issue on rationalising person/place/org/event:

Ensuring as much as possible consistency of potential encoding across person/place/org and I would also add event, is a desirable goal. This has been done piecemeal with issues like 1756 but we should step back, re-assess what the differences are between them and see how they could be better rationalised.

For ease of reference for future discussion, <event> currently contains the following elements:

• listEvent
• listObject
• listPerson
• listPlace
• listRelation
• listRef

[trishaoconnor]

See PR 2882 for progress on implementing this change.