Tim Finney a écrit :
> I second Gabriel's call. It seems to me that both accuracy and
> precision must be specified when describing uncertainty.
This isn't actually what I was proposing, since I have gone on record
before arguing that in almost all cases of mark-up we can use less
specificity in expressing certainty and uncertainty. In the markup
equivalent of an editor putting a question-mark before a restoration or
interpretation, all we really *need* to be able to do in markup is say
cert='high' (default = no question-mark) or cert='low'--and maybe have a
target pointing to what aspect of the restoration is flagged as uncertain.
What I am suggesting is that we need a *different* mechanism to indicate
imprecision of numerical data; again all an editor normally does is
either to write "12 cm" (precision='high') or "c. 12 cm"
(precision='low'). It's actually rather unlikely that we'd want to use
both precision and certainty at the same time, unless we're actually
marking up statistical estimates (in which case there must be a
technical namespace we could use to enhance the TEI provisions).
Re Syd's objection to the use of @precision with date, I think I
disagree. Saying "A.D. 240 - 260" is not the same thing as saying "c.
A.D. 250" (editors do both, and presumably mean different things by
them). Presumably your argument is that <date notBefore='0250'
notAfter='0250' exact='none'> would be equivalent to <date value='0250'
Leaving aside dates, however (which until Syd's sneak preview appeared
to already allow my proposed @precision), there is no similar objection
to the use of @precision to mark the 'circa' status of gap[@extent],
space[@extent], or measure[@value], is there?
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980