Julia's taking up the thread of the possible contrast between the generic
and the culturally-specific led me to
1) consider the difference between "represented" and "indicated"
2) reread the Guidelines on <titlePart>
This rereading and reconsideration led me to ask about page-centric
<titlePart> can be a child of <front>
<titlePart> can be a child of <titlePage>
<titlePart> can be a child of <docTitle>
In the Guidelines <docTitle> is listed first.
<front> can have more than one <titlePage>
These title pages can be physically indicated in a print edition and
represented by a number of <titlePage> elements in the encoding. Now, I
suggest that a single physical title page in a print edition could be
encoding by more than one <titlePage> element in the electronic edition
(nicely linked with a "corresp" attribute if the linking tag set is
invoked.) With the attribute "type" on <titlePage> the encoder(s) can
classify "the title page according to any convenient typology."
I have drawn out this little scenario to ask about the culture of encoding
(which may or not be related to cultures rooted in natural languages).
Could the habits of encoders in terms of the propensity to opt for
one-to-one mapping between elements of electronic and print editions as
opposed to a willingness to use multiple elements and/or attributes to
encode information lodge in a single element of the print edition be
related to the encoder's history with various types of text processing
software or with various types of database programs? I.e. how does the
encoder's reading experience lead them to view the object to be encoded
and the relation of the encoding to the object to be encoded?
The difference between the generic and the culturally-specific may not
simply turn on the "what" is represented but also on the "where" it is
Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
per Interactivity ad Virtuality via Textuality