Comments/proposals on Font and Handwriting recommendation

[rjyounes]

1. Consider renaming HandwritingType to WritingHand. This clarifies the meaning and connects to the more traditional terminology.

2. Could we add notes to Typeface and HandwritingType to the effect that they are comparable concepts in relation to Font and Handwriting, respectively?

3. Ditto for Font and Handwriting.

4. Do we want to say that two texts written by the same person with the same handwriting both have the same Handwriting resource? If yes (which makes sense to me, just like reusable fonts), then the definition should make that clear; perhaps "A specific example of handwriting found in one or more textual resources."

5. Should we define an Activity TypefaceDesigner for Typeface? Then we could find all books written in typefaces designed by X.

6. Similarly, can we attach an agent to a Handwriting resource - i.e., the person whose handwriting it is, since this is not always the author of the work? ScribeActivity?

[deborahjleslie]

Please refer to DCRM-L discussion thread, beginning [(https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2017-November/005235.html)]

[deborahjleslie]

"is critical for" -- the overview doth protest too much, methinks. Perhaps "useful" would be better.

[deborahjleslie]

Do we need another category for higher-level designations, such as gothic, roman, and italic?

[rjyounes]

@deborahjleslie You raised this point at Jason's BSC presentation and I agree that these should be worked into the model. They could be defined as broader terms of the appropriate lower-level terms in a vocabulary. An alternative would be to define them as subclasses of Typeface. This raises the perennial question about the use of taxonomies vs class hierarchies, which at this point I don't have an answer to. Are there pros and cons for this specific case?

[rjyounes]

Added initial comments 1, 4, 5, 6 to the Areas for Future Research doc.