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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  December 2007

TEI-L December 2007

Subject:

Re: What's the appropriate attribute for this?

From:

Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:18:54 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (152 lines)

I think Dot's identified a plausible argument in favour of using @facs 
for this purpose. However, I am not completely convinced: is there any 
good reason why the "generic blocks of TEI code" Martin refers to should 
be represented as <div> elements rather than as <note>s? Using <div> for 
them does rather suggest that they constitute a complete text of some 
sort when laid end to end. Whereas <note> preserves the notion that each 
of these "generic block"s is more or less independent of the others -- 
and (more significantly perhaps) if you represent them as <notes> then 
you  can use the @target attribute of <note> to point directly to the 
<zone> in question and thus avoid worrying whether @corresp or @facs is 
more appropriate!

Lou




Dot Porter wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I think you should use @facs. The introduction to 11.1 Digital
> Facsimiles says about a digital facsimile, "Such a collection may form
> part of any kind of document, for example a commentary of a
> codicological or paeleographic nature, where there is a need to align
> explanatory text with image data." This is pretty clearly what you
> want to do (align explanatory text - annotations - with image), and
> since @facs is the linking attribute defined for digital facsimiles,
> it's what should be used. My understanding is that @facs is a general
> attribute for linking "text" to "image", and I don't agree that we
> should limit that linking to transcription-image of text only.
>
> Dot
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 12:15 PM, Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>   
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm rewriting the Image Markup Tool so that it uses the new <facsimile>,
>> <surface> and <zone> elements instead of SVG, giving it a "pure" TEI
>> file format in one namespace. Quite a few people have asked for this,
>> and it seemed a great idea when I started.
>>
>> I've been getting help and suggestions from Conal Tuohy about the best
>> way to go about this, and we're largely agreed on most things, but there
>> is one issue that still isn't clear, so I'd like to raise it here.
>>
>> The situation is that I need to link generic blocks of TEI code (<div>
>> elements) to <zone> elements, using an attribute:
>>
>> [...]
>> <zone xml:id="zone_01" ulx="5" uly="20" lrx="100" lry="180" />
>> [...]
>>
>> <div has-something-to-do-with="zone_01">
>> [...]
>> </div>
>>
>> The issue is what should be used for the "something-to-do-with"
>> attribute. The primary problem is that the application is a general tool
>> which cannot discover or dictate the nature of the relationship between
>> the <zone> and the <div>. Sometimes the <div> might contain a
>> transcription of text in the <zone>; sometimes it might be a description
>> of an object; sometimes it could be editorial analysis, or "annotation"
>> (whatever that is), or any number of other types of relationship. The
>> IMT is written for novice users, and I don't believe it would be
>> effective, helpful or appropriate to menace them with interrogation
>> about the precise nature of the relationship between the text they're
>> associating with the zone; nor do I think it would be easy to predict
>> all possible types of association. Finally, IMT is used quite a lot by
>> people who don't care about TEI at all; they just want to get the "Web
>> View" HTML output from it, so they have no interest in being explicit
>> about the nature of the relationship between their "annotation" and the
>> square bit of the image it's associated with.
>>
>> So I need a single attribute that can be used in all cases, whatever the
>> nature of the relationship between the <div> and the <zone>. The
>> candidates that have emerged from the discussion so far are these:
>>
>> @ana:
>> -----
>> I believe this is intended specifically for linking where the
>> relationship involves some linguistic or similar analysis; in other
>> words, I think this is too specific for a general case.
>>
>> @corresp:
>> ---------
>> I would have thought from the guidelines that this is precisely the
>> general attribute I need, but in a recent post Lou said this:
>>
>>        "all the examples of suggested uses for @corresp show it
>>         being used for various kinds of linguistic alignment!"
>>
>> which carries the suggestion that these are the appropriate uses for it,
>> and that perhaps it isn't the general-purpose attribute I once thought
>> it was.
>>
>> @facs:
>> ------
>> This is my favourite, because it comes with the <facsimile> family, and
>> the one thing I do know is that I'm linking to a <zone>. The guidelines
>> say that @facs is used on "elements which can be associated with an
>> image or a surface within a <facsimile> element". That seems fairly open
>> to me, and I hope it's the case.
>>
>> However, Con's position is different (and he was the prime mover behind
>> <facsimile>). He maintains that its only appropriate use is to link a
>> _transcription_ to a <facsimile>, <surface> or <zone>; other types of
>> relationship are not appropriate. In other words, it's not suitable for
>> the general case I'm dealing with. I don't think the guidelines support
>> this; @facs is global, so I can add @facs to <publicationStmt>, or
>> <fileDesc>, or <keywords>, or <tagsDecl> -- and they're pretty unlikely
>> to contain transcription. The guidelines further say:
>>
>> "This attribute may be used to associate any element in a transcribed
>> text with an image of it, by means of the usual URI pointing mechanism."
>>
>> where, to me, "may" suggests this is _one_ acceptable use of @facs, not
>> the only one. I'm happy to be told I'm wrong here, but if so, I think
>> the guidelines do need to be more explicit about this.
>>
>> @n:
>> ---
>> @n is often used as a fallback where you need to store
>> something-or-other and you don't want to be specific or restrictive
>> about what it is. But that in itself is an argument against it; I'd like
>> my attribute to be restricted to well-formed URIs. Also, the guidelines say:
>>
>> "The n attribute may be used to specify the numbering of chapters,
>> sections, list items, etc.; it may also be used in the specification of
>> a standard reference system for the text."
>>
>> I'm not actually doing any of those things.
>>
>> So what do you think?
>>
>> All help appreciated,
>> Martin
>>
>> --
>> Martin Holmes
>> University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>> ([log in to unmask])
>> Half-Baked Software, Inc.
>> ([log in to unmask])
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

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

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