Lou Burnard wrote:
> I think the bits in caps are quotes. I don't see what benefit there is
> in linking the quotes to the specific bit of text being quoted (assuming
> of course that the note and the text passage are in fact already
> linked!) but if you wanted to do I suppose using @corresp might be
> appropriate. Or either @copyOf or @[log in to unmask] (I can never remember which
> is which)
I was assuming the case presented was a simple one and that there might be
more complex notes which quoted/referenced text from multiple locations.
Like you I assume that the note as a whole will point to the appropriate
place(s) in the text. Other than perhaps a bit of duplication, I don't see
much wrong with David's approach. I would probably have used <ref> instead
of <q> as I see these more as textual cross references rather than quotes.
But I don't see either as wrong.
> David Sewell wrote:
>> I'd like feedback on the optimal way of tagging a particular note
>> practice, as there are several options.
>> In a edition of documents that we are digitizing, explanatory notes to a
>> document are given in the form of free text in which a word or phrase
>> from the document is quoted and rendered distinctively (in small caps).
>> For example, one document begins
>> Dear Sir
>> My last Letter was by the Post eight Days ago. Since that a Letter
>> has come to your Address from Monsr. de Vergennes; [...]
>> The editorial note begins
>> Short's LAST LETTER was that of 26 Mch; no letter from VERGENNES
>> subsequent to that date has been found [...]
>> We want the annotational links to be bidirectional, so that a reader can
>> easily move between source and commentary. My instinct is to handle this
>> with dual @corresp attributes (largely for reasons of processing I don't
>> want to use <link> elements):
>> My <seg type="keyword" xml:id="kw1" corresp="#kwref1">last
>> Letter</seg> was ...
>> Short's <ref type="keyword" xml:id="kwref1" corresp="#kw1"
>> letter</ref> was that of 26 Mch;
>> <seg> seems appropriate for the source phrases, as they are wholly
>> unmarked in the original (i.e. the segmentation is a purely editorial
>> artefact). I wonder about whether the phrase in the note should be
>> treated as a quotation (with <q> say) rather than as a <ref>. But its
>> function seems to align it more with a note numeral than with genuine
>> quotation. Thoughts?
Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk