Hi Lou,

well the corresp attribute is meant to handle situation where you've got 
several metamarks on the page, not necessarily adjacent to the segment 
they point to...  It's kind of a pointer I guess. I chose "corresp" as I 
wanted something bi-directionnal...

Il didn't mention it to simplify the example, but the note was chosen to 
relate theses crosses to other kinds of marks with a same general 
purpose (ie selection of a passage of text) but a different appearances 
(vertical straight lines or curved lines).

Considering your advice, I would be inclined to use the <g/> element to 
encode the physical mark on the page, inside a <note> to indicate this 
mark takes its place in a general system of annotations by Flaubert, 
clarifying the function of the mark with the note's attributes...

Would that be ok ?
What do you think ?

Thanks a lot !
emmanuelle

Lou a écrit :
> bonjour emmanuelle!
>
> The crosses themselves are <metamark> s, and the TEI MS SIG WG on 
> genetic editing has proposed a new element  for exactly this purpose. 
> The stretch of text indicated they would probably propose to mark with 
> a <used> element.
>
> This and other proposals from the group are to be discussed at the TEI 
> Council meeting at the end of this month.
>
> For the moment, I'd mark the crosses as <g/> elements rather than 
> <note>s.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by your @corresp attributes below. Can you 
> explain?
>
> amicalement
>
> lou
>
>
> Emmanuelle Morlock-Gerstenkorn wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> My question concerns the encoding of handwritten selection marks in a 
>> manuscritpt (actually the encoding project of Flaubert's documentary 
>> files of Bouvard & Pécuchet).
>>
>> We've got to encode several kinds of handwritten marginal crosses, 
>> added by Flaubert on his reading notes (and other types of pages) to 
>> hilite some quotations or excerpts he needed to select.
>> Most of the time these marks look like a big letter "X". But of 
>> course, we don't want to encode them as a letter.
>> I have to add that he used the same marks both on handwritten and 
>> printed material.
>>
>> Shall we define some glyphes or is it enough to encode them with a 
>> empty element <note /> with a dedicated rendition ?
>>
>> Example 1 : empty note :
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> <note xml:id="cross01" corresp="#fragment03" type="selection" 
>> resp="#GF" rendition="#cross" place="margin"/>
>> (...)
>> <seg xml:id="fragment03" corresp="#cross01">bla bla bla</seg>
>>
>> Example 2 : note + glyph
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> <note xml:id="cross01" corresp="#fragment03" type="selection" 
>> resp="#GF" place="margin">
>>     <g ref="#cross" />
>> </note>
>> (...)
>> <seg xml:id="fragment03" corresp="#cross01">bla bla bla</seg>
>>
>>
>>
>>  From your experience or point of view, what differences would that 
>> make ?
>> Are there other options ?
>> What encoding strategy would you recommend ?
>>
>> Many thanks for any help...
>> Yours,
>>
>> Emmanuelle Morlock-Gerstenkorn
>>
>

-- 


Edition électronique et documentation

Service d'Ingénierie Documentaire 
http://sid.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/

MutEC (Mutualisation d'outils numériques pour les éditions critiques et les corpus)
http://www.mutec-shs.fr/

....................................................................................

ISH -Institut des Sciences de l'Homme
14 avenue Berthelot - 69363 Lyon cedex07
Tél. +33 (0)4 72 72 65 59 - Fax +33 (0)4 72 80 00 08

http://www.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/

....................................................................................

La TEI en France : pratiques et perspectives - 9,10 et 11 juin 2010 - Lyon

Journées d’étude, de formation et d’échanges sur l’encodage TEI d’éditions critiques et de corpus numériques
Organisées par MutEC avec le soutien du TGE Adonis