I think of editorial changes as the same kind of thing as scribal
changes. A scribe who was doing a bit of editing might have altered a
manuscript version of the text. An editor who is doing a bit of editing
alters a printed or electronic version of the text. Consequently, I
think that using an attribute to identify the agent is sufficient.
FWIW, I wrote a chapter for the book _The Freer Biblical Manuscripts_
ed. Larry Hurtado (Society of Biblical Literature, 2006) which describes
one approach to marking up biblical manuscripts using the TEI. You can
see a practical example of the system in use here:
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:29 +0000, Elena Pierazzo wrote:
> Hi all,
> I keep thinking about the existence of an ontological difference
> between a correction made by a scribe in a manuscript and a correction
> made by a modern editor.
> At present we have just one element for encoding it (<corr> normally
> used together with <orig>) with the possibility of distinguishing who
> is responsible for the correction by the help of an attribute (@resp).
> In editorial practice we normally use two different words to define
> - corrections in cases that are made by a scribe
> - emendations in cases that are made by an editor
> This dual way of calling an intervention suggests that possibly it is
> a matter of two different phenomena that may need two different
> elements, the differentiation performed through an attribute is not
> strong enough and in any case is above what an attribute is supposed
> to mean.
> Any thoughts?
> Elena Pierazzo
> Associate Researcher
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities
> King's College London
> Kay House
> 7 Arundel St
> London WC2R 3DX
> Phone: 0207-848-1949
> Fax: 0207-848-2980