<idno type="filename">XYZ</idno>

[arlogriffiths]

@danbalogh — can you summarize what decision has been taken on what to fill in for XYZ in <idno type="filename">XYZ</idno> within <publicationStmt>? Axelle would like to implement the same in EGC. I am not sure the current draft of EGD revisions reflects a final decision, hence my question.

[danbalogh]

Indeed, the EGD draft cannot be relied on for final decisions.
We have not reached a decision on the idno.
See my summary in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WA7Hoe2MtkXRQpE1UcfVETvc4knG66zj2nfI5YD2q_c/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#heading=h.jzv211ktm1d2

our current usage such as DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00001 is not appropriate, because this is not a filename
need to sort out:
A, either change the content so that it is a filename (add the extension .xml)
B, or change the value of @type so that it says something else, e.g. dharma or DHARMA or dharmaID or whatever
in comments below, Arlo seems to prefer A
Dan would prefer B but can live with A
we need a decision

The only comment on this summary is by you (argr), from 14 April, saying "either one is fine with me"
Your "comments below" referred to are:
6 March "I have suggested below that we could just keep filename provided that we make mandatory inclusion of the suffix .xml"
and also 6 March: "[...] this could be resolved by changing the encoding rules to the effect that the suffix is to be included."

If you need a decision for the EGC urgently, I think none of us will mind if you make it and we apply it to the EGD too. To my mind, as I mentioned the other day somewhere, the ID number is primary, and our practice is to use the ID number in the filenames, but that does not make the ID number a filename - hence, I'd still prefer <idno>DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00001</idno> or <idno type="dharma">DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00001</idno>

[arlogriffiths]

Thanks a lot Dan. Since Critical Editions never involve an ID number (and Diplomatic Editions don't always involve one, while if they do, then the numbers we are dealing with come from various libraries and can't be made coherent with each other), I feel we definitely need to implement <idno type="filename">body_of_filename.suffix</idno> in EGC.

I don't know if we need/want to have the same @type on <idno> in both EGC and EGD: @michaelnmmeyer : your opinion please? I do know that the other PIs will not care, so let us come to a decision.

1. If we do need/want to have the same @type on <idno> in both encoding models, then let us implement this decision also in EGD.
2. If we do not need/want to have the same @type on <idno> in both encoding models, then I suggest for EGD <idno type="inscription">DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00001</idno>.

[arlogriffiths]

Can you confirm that a decision regarding <authority>has been taken and that it should be represented like this?

<authority><ref target="{URI for DHARMA website}”>DHARMA</ref></authority>

[danbalogh]

I think it would be nicer to have the same structure as far as feasible, and given your explanation about the EGC, I think we'd best go keep @type="filename" on idno and add the file extension to the content.

Who is the question on <authority> addressed to? If to me, I have no recollection of a decision, or indeed of any discussion concerning this, and have no preference in the matter. Happy to use whatever you decide on.

[arlogriffiths]

1. Thanks Dan. Let's then consider the issue of how to represent <idno> in <publicationStmt> settled. @michaelnmmeyer : please insert .xml into all <idno>s within <publicationStmt>.
2. As for the contents of <authoriry>, I am not sure where @ajaniak got her suggestion <authority><ref target="{URI for DHARMA website}”>DHARMA</ref></authority> but if @michaelnmmeyer approves, we can accept it.

[danbalogh]

OK, idno business noted in the Roles gdoc.

[arlogriffiths]

Re. point 2, see #334, last comment by Daniel, who suggested

<publicationStmt>
<authority><ref target="{URI for DHARMA website}">DHARMA</ref></authority>
{the rest of the publication statement>
</publicationStmt>

So {URI for DHARMA website} can be replaced by dharmalekha.info I suppose.

Unless there are objections, let us consider this settled too.

[danbalogh]

Thanks for finding the thread on the publication statement - I'd quite forgotten about it.