As I said in my last email to the list, I'm working on a project in
which I have a bunch of TEI "manuscript" files, and I'm trying to
produce a critical edition from them. I've run into one apparent bug
and one conceptual problem on which I'd like advice from anyone who
has done this sort of thing before.
The bug is in the definition of <witDetail/>. The guidelines say this
about its attribute 'wit':
"@wit (witnesses) indicates the sigil or sigla for the witnesses to
which the detail refers."
...but the RNG schema only allows a single data pointer as the value
of this attribute. This is in contrast to <rdg/> and its friends,
which allow multiple sigla to be listed (e.g. <rdg wit="#A #D
#Cz">...</rdg>). Or am I misunderstanding something? I've modified
my local copy of the schema, but wonder if this should be fixed in the
published ones.
Among other more canonical uses, I am using the <witDetail/> tag to
record punctuation variants. Rather than making each punctuation mark
a separate reading, which I have found extremely cumbersome from the
point of view of text collation, I have been adding a <witDetail/> tag
on any word that has punctuation in any of the manuscripts. So a
typical reading will look something like this (apologies for the
strange words; this is transliterated Armenian):
<app xml:id="App481">
<rdg wit="#Jer #K">
<w>zastoucoy</w>
</rdg>
<rdg wit="#V #Y">
<w>astoucoyn</w>
</rdg>
<witDetail target="#App481" wit="#K" type="punctuation">:</
witDetail>
<witDetail target="#App481" wit=" #V #Y"
type="punctuation">,</witDetail>
<rdg wit="#X" type="omission"/>
</app>
which gives the following witnesses:
Jer: zastoucoy
K: zastoucoy:
V: astoucoyn,
X: (om.)
Y: astoucoyn,
So before I go too much farther with this sort of thing, I am
wondering: is there a generally accepted way to handle punctuation
variations in text criticism? To handle punctuation at the level of
semantic markup at all? How have other people done this, if at all?
-tara
|
