On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:28:58 +0000, Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Also I faced with a more general case in this regard. It's the problem
>> with understanding the @resp use cases: when we are faced with an
>> existing document in a hard format (printed or manuscript) we faced
>> with some existing mark-up in the text such as highlitings, indexes,
>> ... and one may want to encode such features. In the course of marking
>> such features in the new xml-form of the text, he/she may make some
>> decisions on what that markup means in each case (for example it may
>> be an emphasis, a foreign word, a term , ...). In cases where the
>> encoder faced with an addition or deletion or so, the @hand can be
>> used to distinguish between the responsibility for the feature itself,
>> and the responsibility for the encoding using that element. The other
>> features like highliting, ... how can be handled in this regard? Who
>> should be registered as the responsible person in such cases? The
>> encoder (who decided for the mark-up)?
>Yes, in general. The @hand attribute indicates the agency which the
>encoder believes is responsible for writing something. The @resp
>attribute indicates the agency which the encoder believes is responsible
>for a textual modification captured in the markup. All markup in a
>document indicates the belief of the person who marked it up --
>sometimes those beliefs concern other agencies whose actions are
>(believed by the encoder to be) discernible in the text.
Thanks a lot for your attention and useful guidance (especially facing a beginner like me). Now, I wanna review these features and again try to understand another case:
So, for transcriving a text published before in a printed form or found as a manuscript, the circle encoding in TEI format seems to be completed. The agency responsible for the text itself has been encoded using the @hand attribute, the agency responsible for some modifications like heading (for divisions or so), indexing, highlighting, footnoting, ... has been encoded using the @resp attribute and any changes made after that in the encoding may be encoded using the change element in the revisionDesc part of the header. What we should do after that, with comments, interpretations, editorial interventions, ...? Is it a good practice to marking comments using a <note> with the responsibility (with @hand attribute or @resp?) of the person who added it using a computer application (although he/she is responsible for the text itself not a modification)? What should we do, when we want to mark a segment of text as an abbreviation, a term, an emphasis, or making a head for a division (or another part) or ... which is not originally in the document? Is it a correct practice to mark our own responsibility using the @resp attribute? Is it the best practice?
Another case is born-digital documents which someone may share it with others to modify it and make some corrections on its content or so. What's the best practice to mark the responsibilities for such interventions made then? Should we mark that using the @hand attribute in some <add>, <del>, ... and @resp for <hi>, <note>, <index>, <term>, <gloss>, ...? What's the best practice so?
Best regards, Saeed