This is a list of stuff that KSW reports needs attention (from his Google Doc "Matters for deliberation"):
- The placement and refreshment process of <name type=”addressee”> tags. See the Search page for details in this. So far, we have been inconsistent with things of this nature. [Martin reports that we may have to address (ha-ha) this later]
- Who is “EBP”? The name appears in 1859 and beyond. [I have emailed JH with an inquiry, and he does not know. ]
- How to style measurements, especially kilometres (spell it out?) vs. km vs. Km, and so on. Find this in Chicago. [Chicago uses km, as in “ a 50 km race” -- I added this info to the Guidelines document.]
- Content to tag, or not, in the <notes>
- DONE 2012-03-13: Remove <date> tags from inside all <ref co_ref> tags in 1858.[Presumably this was for consistency, since only 17 files had these tags. They were not only in 1858, though.]
- Tag instances of “the Governor” with Douglas’s tag?
- Cotteris and Sons, and the like: to tag or not to tag. And, this raises the larger question on tagging companies.
- To add district-related information to the Victoria profile. For example, some letters refer to the Victoria district. This may take some serious research, mostly in order to determine the historical boundaries of the same. Hmmmm.
- At some point, we will have to search all the image collections for non-transcribed files. I have created a spreadsheet file called “Transcriptions required” for files I have caught, ad-hoc. However, we should approach this problem systematically. One method would be to work through each image collection and confirm, by despatch number, that each image has a transcribed equivalent.