On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 13:54 -0800, Martin Holmes wrote:
> HI Lou,
> Lou Burnard wrote:
> > I think Dot's identified a plausible argument in favour of using @facs
> > for this purpose. However, I am not completely convinced:
Neither am I actually.
Specifically, I'd prefer to see @facs reserved for encoding the
relationship between transcribed text and imaged text; what I like to
call "facsimilitude" :-)
The examples using @facs in the Guidelines all link between transcript
and image, and I have a concern that if @facs is used to encode other
(non-facsimile) relationships then this may cause confusion and problems
For those not familiar with the new P5 "facs" module, it defines a few
elements and attributes for describing facsimile images and linking them
* The <facsimile> element is a container element which may appear within
the root <TEI> element.
* <surface> elements (within the <facsimile>) represent the inscribed
surfaces (i.e. pages or similar).
* <zone> elements within each <surface> represent rectangular regions on
* Each <zone> can contain <graphic> elements which would be scanned
images of that region.
The facs module also defines two new linking attributes (@start and
@facs) for linking to zones, but the question here is whether it's
appropriate to use these attributes to represent the fact that a piece
of text is "about" a zone, or whether they should be reserved for text
which is a transcription of that zone.
For texts produced using the IMT software, that <div> might contain a
transcript of the text depicted in that <zone>, or it might be a brief
description of a person depicted in the image, or it could be a long
essay about the cultural significance of some feature which appears in
that little detail of the image.
> Conal also argued that I should be discriminating between different
> types of things the user wants to say -- putting "annotations" in one
> kind of container, "notes" in another, transcriptions in another, and so
What concerns me isn't so much what container the text is in, but rather
how (i.e. with which pointer attribute) that container is linked to the
zone which it relates to.
> So the only issue for me is whether @facs is, as Conal claims, limited
> to transcription, or whether it's more general (as Dot and I think). Or,
> if not @facs, then should @corresp be used?
Yes - my opinion is that @facs should be reserved for encoding the
relationship between an image and a transcript of that image, and that
other attributes should be used for all other purposes.
Alternative attributes defined in the TEI are @ana (which links to an
interpretation or analysis) and @corresp (which links to something which
corresponds "in some way").
Given that the specific nature of the relationship is not going to be
captured by the IMT, it seems to me best to choose the most specific
attribute that could still validly represent the kinds of relationship
that might be required. I'd have thought @ana would be best, so long as
you'd regard a transcription of an image as a specific kind of
"interpretation" (I would).
New Zealand Electronic Text Centre