>> - I have used IMT with various groups of students now and its
>> simplicity is stunning, very much appreciated by beginners and worth
>> keeping (you can always costumise it if you want!), so although we
>> could differentiate between different types of annotations, @facs
>> seems the best candidate for expressing a straight forward -not
>> further specified- association.
> I am entirely willing to believe that IMT is a great tool to use, but
> that is not an argument to support whether @facs should be used for
> "any kind of association between image and any kind of text" or only
> for "association between image and a transcription of the image".
> Just to muddy the waters further, would you regard as "transcription" of
> an image a description such as "woman holding child in stable full of
> beasts of burden; three oriental potentates offering gifts" or
> "bowl of fruit, one slightly mouldy"?
That's exactly the problem. If you limit @facs to transcription, I bet
it is going to be quite hard to say what a transcription is.
A diplomatic imitative transcription only (and of which grade?)? a
critical edition? a palaeographyc commentary where interspersed with the
'transcription' of a string of text you would have comments on the
morphology of the letters?...tricky...
Dr Arianna Ciula
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL (UK)
Tel: +44 (0)20 78481945