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.

-James

> 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 ...
>>
>> and
>>
>>    Short's <ref type="keyword" xml:id="kwref1" corresp="#kw1" 
>> rend="sc">last
>>    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