Can I conclude that little (if any) importance is attached to the
meaning given the <group> element in the Guidelines? that <group> can
be used also for an authorial sequence of chapters?
On Jun 8, 2009, at 2:30PM, Jens Østergaard Petersen wrote:
> Thanks for your answer, James!
> "<group> contains the body of a composite text, grouping together a
> sequence of distinct texts (or groups of such texts) which are
> regarded as a unit for some purpose, for example the collected works
> of an author, a sequence of prose essays, etc."
> the Guidelines say, but there seems to me to be something temporary
> about grouping texts in this way - "for some purpose" indicates
> this, I should think. The dictionary in question is certainly meant
> as a whole (though it was not quite finished when the author died),
> so the chapters can hardly be called "distinct" texts, not is the
> dictionary "composite" in the sense that I think is implied here.
> Since the dictionary orders its material according to the Buddhist
> texts it glosses (and since there are 465 of these), the chapter-
> wise TOCs come in very handy. There is no general front matter to
> the dictionary as a whole, so there is no general TOC: each chapter
> has its own front matter, with a more or less similar title-
> (subtitle)-author-TOC structure. This is of course connected to the
> format used at the time (paper scrolls could not hold more than one
> chapter). A similar case would be encoding, say, a standard multi-
> volume dictionary, where you might want to note that volume 1
> covered "a to c" and volume 2 "c to e" and so on (though the
> practical use of this would be very little, I admit).
> The colophons are no big thing - they repeats the chapter
> information and state who printed the chapter and when.
> So basically I feel that using group in this case does not agree
> very well with the definition - and I wonder why no need has been
> seen for chapter-wise front and back matters when dealing with texts
> in the Western tradition.
> In the early Chinese tradition (mainly the time when bamboo and wood
> was used to write on), individual chapters often "circulated on
> their own" and many of the "books" that we have now are composites -
> the efforts of later editors to collect the writings associated with
> a certain person into a book. <group> might fit very nicely in such
> cases. In the 7th century dictionary we are not talking about
> scattered book-like chapters that were collected, in a temporary
> manner, but about integral works, which, mainly because of the
> material used to write on still had its length limitations,
> circulated as chapters and therefore had front and back matter
> attached to chapters and not the work the chapters made up.
> On Jun 8, 2009, at 1:46PM, James Cummings wrote:
>> Jens Østergaard Petersen wrote:
>>> I am new to this list (and relatively new to TEI) - I am afraid my
>>> questions might belong in a "Newbie" list.
>> They certainly belong here!
>>> The dictionary has a number of chapters, but each of these have
>>> front and back matter - TOCs and colophons and so on. It does not
>>> appear correct to regard the dictionary as a text group, so is
>>> there another way of handling such a situation? It looks to me as
>>> if it might occur often, in Western contexts as well.
>> I'm interested in why you think it isn't correct to regard the
>> dictionary as a text group? If the individual chapters have front
>> and back matter, then they seem like individual <text>s to me.
>> The other possibility of <teiCorpus> seems wrong to me since you
>> are not trying to store a separate <teiHeader> for each of these
>> chapters, only additional front/back matter.
>> For what it is worth, I would have used something like:
>> <!-- front matter for entire dictionary--></front>
>> <front><!-- front matter for first chapter --></front>
>> <body><!-- first chapter's entries --></body>
>> <back><!-- back matter for first chapter --></back>
>> <!-- second chapter -->
>> <back><!-- back matter for entire dictionary--></back>
>> Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service, University of
>> James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk