Thank you very much for your input here!
Den 09. juni 2011 20:09, skrev Lou Burnard:
> On 25/05/11 17:39, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Espen S. Ore wrote:
>>> In the P4 version I am converting they created a new
>>> element,<printer> as a
>>> parallel to<publisher> - printer is here ment as a printing firm or
>>> printer's shop.
>> Speaking in ignorance, as usual...
>> Is there any body of practice in the application of TEI to
>> early modern bibliography?
> I am sure there is quite a bit of established practice out there in the
> wild, but I don't know that it's been fed back into the Guidelines. I
> know we've two or three times tried to set up a workgroup on related
> topics, but they don't seem to have led to updates to the Guidelines, if
> updates are needed.
> But are they actually needed? Here's my understanding of the issues
> about marking up these things using currently available TEI elements.
> Let's begin by making distinctions though... The following are all, in
> my view, different animals:
> a) the printer (etc) when included in a bibliographic record, for
> example inside a <sourceDesc> for a particular exemplar being encoded.
> b) the printer (etc) as it appears verbatim at some point on a title
> page or similar
> c) a name which (we know) is that of a printer (etc) which might appear
> anywhere (including a priori the preceding two cases)
> For the first case, the TEI provides a few special purpose elements,
> mostly corresponding with things that have an established place in
> modern bibliographic records -- <publisher> being the most obvious. It
> doesn't provide <printer> or <bookseller> or <illustrator> or <engraver>
> etc but it *does* provide a generic <respStmt> for them. So in a
> bibliographic record, e.g. inside a <bibl> or <biblStruct> you can
> certainly say <respStmt><resp>printer</resp><name>Blackberry
> Press</name></respStmt> etc. And you can of course add your own
> <my:printer> element to the model.biblPart class if the generic case
> seems too much of a faff for your immense bibliography of 18th c.
> printing. And you can also lobby for such an element to be added
> explicitly to the Guidelines in due course.
Basically we are working on books where the printing firm is listed in a
way parallel to the publisher, so both as a fact (what is the publishing
firm? what is the printing firm?) and as a part of what is printed on
the page printer and publisher seem to exist on the same level - I am
now especially talking about 19th and early 20th century Danish and
Norwegian books. So wherever a <publisher> is accepted, a <printer>
should be as well. But to keep things simple we use a variant of the
<my:printer> solution and leave it at that.
Why do we bother with the printer at all? Curiosity maybe - one of the
things we have found in the Ibsen project is the amount of internal
variation between copies of books from the same edition (e.g. the first
edition) - so one might wish to see whether some printing firms have
more or certain types of variants than others. But that is my personal
University of Oslo