On 11-08-26 06:13 AM, Doug Reside wrote:
> This is precisely why tool development should be so central to the
> TEI. Until the community _as a whole_ tries to use the markup, we
> won't know the best way to encode.
> I've been irritated by text nodes that come from an editor rather than
> the source before, but I agree that placing this sort of text in
> attributes is probably not the way to do this either. I like the
> namespacing idea, as it means I can first process out anything in the
> editorial namespace before doing indexing or any other sort of
> processing. However, I wonder if leaving such editorial commentary to
> standoff annotations indexed by xpath isn't a better solution.
You still have to put something in the text to anchor the annotations
to. For instance, if you want to do this:
...blah di blah blah<note>This is rubbish (Ed.)</note> blah di blah
then you have to introduce something like this:
...blah di blah blah<anchor xml:id="ed_note_1"/> blah di blah
to anchor your external annotation to. So once again we have elements
which don't contain original source text (although in this case the
element is empty).
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Martin Holmes<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 11-08-26 05:42 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>>> One way to do this would be with namespaces. Elements deemed to contain
>>>> only transcription could be in a separate namespace from elements
>>>> containing interpretive data or metadata.
>>> it's not impossible we could allow any attribute to also appear as a child
>>> element in a separate namespace. But I suspect a total rewrite with the
>>> idea of considerably lessening use of attributes would be cleaner.
>> I thought what he was basically saying was that _if_ this separation were
>> - elements (in<text> at least) contain transcribed content
>> - attributes contain editorial/interpretive/metadata content
>> then indexing and searching the original text would be much simpler.
>> However, this would make it impossible to use helpful markup inside
>> editorial interpolations, and there are other issues, such as supplied
>> <abbr>Brd</abbr> <--- original content
>> <expan>Board</expan<--- supplied, but should be indexed anyway
>> The use of distinct namespaces would solve this problem.
>>> I like Jens' thinking, but its a whole big can of worms to open...
>>> Sebastian Rahtz
>>> Head of Information and Support Group
>>> Oxford University Computing Services
>>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>> Sólo le pido a Dios
>>> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])