LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  March 2007

TEI-L March 2007

Subject:

Re: Uniform guidelines for applying semantics to highlighted text?

From:

Amanda Gailey <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:01:41 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (124 lines)

Hi, Peter-

Thanks very much for your response. Your interest in a standoff system
that separates a fairly orthodox edited text (however the project
defines that) from annotations/interpretive files meshes with long-term
goals for some projects here. Have you considered taking this one step
further and even removing the editorial markup to its own file? In the
case of a Spenser edition we're working on, two competing editorial
interests in the texts (literary/logical and physical bibliographic)
seem to demand that a proper standoff system would involve a clean
transcription as the base file to avoid competing hierarchies. Not all
editions are interested in noting both of these views of a text, and so
could, of course, include the editorial markup in the base file. But
that would from the outset require that future standoff files not
hierarchically conflict with whatever the base file's annotations say
about the text. Is that a problem for you, or do you view that as an
edition's prerogative?

Thanks again,
Amanda





Peter Boot wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>> As some literary projects have been around long enough to have begun
>> looking beyond "high-level markup," I wonder what seems to be coming
>> next? Are you looking for ways to accommodate more controversial,
>> thesis-driven claims about your texts? Perhaps even a variety of such
>> claims? Or are you looking for ways to layer in even more detail of the
>> same kinds of observations present in your first round of markup? What
>> do you eventually want your markup to do for scholarship that it
>> currently can't? I'd be interested in hearing from people on different
>> projects.
>>
>
> This is more or less the subject of the PhD thesis I am currently writing,
> so forgive me if this is a lengthy reply.
>
> I think we should distinguish between making available a text to
> scholarship and the scholarly research that becomes possible after it has
> been made available. I work at the Huygens Instituut, where we have a long
> tradition in creating editions. Of course creating a serious edition, on
> paper or digital, is in itself a scholarly undertaking. But the purpose of
> making an edition is to facilitate the scholarly work of others. In the
> creation of an edition, the primary task is to make available sources,
> comment on the transmission of the text, sometimes create a trustworthy
> critical text, perhaps build an apparatus of variants, etc. It is
> impossible to avoid interpretation, but interpretation should have only a
> limited place at that stage.
>
> When the text is available to other scholars (possibly including the
> editor of the text) it should be possible to do interpretive research. In
> that stage I do not think you’ll want to do markup inside of the edited
> text. As has been argued by many, you don’t want to mess around with a
> carefully edited text. Inserting tags in an edited text is bound to
> introduce errors. So if you’re not in a ‘lone scholar’ situation, where
> you do both the basic encoding and all further research, as I see it,
> there are two options:
> (1) create duplicates of the encoding, where each researcher will add
> encodings to his/her own copy of the encoded file, while the master copy
> is kept safe from corruption
> (2) have the researchers use a form of stand-of markup; what the
> researchers create is really a set of research annotations to the master
> XML file.
>
> In order to enable the merging of annotations from multiple researchers,
> the second option (where a single file provides the basis for all of the
> annotations) is obviously preferable. Another thing this setup facilitates
> is display of the annotations in the context of a digital edition, but
> that is another matter.
>
> So what I have been experimenting with is doing literary research where
> the output is stored in XML files that refer to a TEI-XML encoded primary
> text. In my case, the primary texts are emblem books from the Emblem
> Project Utrecht [1], and what I have been investigating are things like
> the use of metaphor in the emblems, or the occurrence of theatrical
> phenomena. I have used the annotation tool EDITOR (created here at the
> Huygens Institute) [2] in one of these investigations. In the other one I
> use an OWL ontology as the basis for manually created annotations [3].
>
> At the Emblem Project Utrecht itself, we experimented with encoding
> petrarchist features in an emblem book [4] and encoding several rhetorical
> features in another book.
>
> Similar things elsewhere would be, I suppose:
> = The study of literary characters by Amélie Zöllner-Weber [5]
> = The grammatical and rhetorical markup of Lancelot texts in the Charrette
> project [6]
> = The work of the Virtual Humanities Lab at Brown University [7]
> = Vika Zafrin’s work on themes and motifs in the Roland tradition [8]
> = The study of seduction scenarios in the Project Loreley (inactive) [9]
>
> Lots of experimentation and exploration going on!
>
> Peter Boot
>
> [1] http://emblems.let.uu.nl/
> [2] http://www.huygensinstituut.knaw.nl/projects/editor
> [3] http://emblems.let.uu.nl/lab/dse/metaphor
> [4] http://emblems.let.uu.nl/he1608_petrarchist_motives.html
> [5] http://computerphilologie.tu-darmstadt.de/jg05/zoellner-weber.html
> [6] http://lancelot.baylor.edu/home/,
> http://www.princeton.edu/~lancelot/ss/index.shtml
> [7] http://golf.services.brown.edu/projects/VHL/
> [8] http://wordsend.org/rht/xml/index_2006.php
> [9] http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/literatur/projekte/loreley/start.htm
>

--

Amanda Gailey
Associate Director
Humanities Digital Workshop
Campus Box 1160
Washington University in St. Louis
One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
314-935-8830

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager