On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:53:32 +0000, Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Ah yes. The prose part of the Lite tutorial probably still needs some
>attention to reflect changes in the Guidelines. In this particular case,
>versions of the Guidelines prior to P5 (and therefore Lite) were quite
>open minded about whether <add>, <del> etc should be used to encode
>changes of any origin, including them both for changes evident in a
>manuscript, or changes which an editor might want to make, for example
>to correct a reading or supply a missing passage. In later versions of
>the Guidelines, the recommendation you quote was made, stating that (for
>example) <add> shouldn't be used to record something not actually
>present in a manuscript, largely because it was felt that (despite the
>availability of the @resp attribute ) such additions were semantically
>quite different, and a tag such as <supplied> would be a better way of
>indicating this. The (implied) contradictory recommendation to use <add>
>for this purpose was however left in Lite rather than adding more
>elements to that schema. I suspect that most people actually ignore the
It seems more than what Lou noted here, I think. If it's decided to adapt the Lite to the new version of the guideline and to restrict those elements to the interventions made by persons other than encoder and editor, then at least the <supplied> element should be added to the Lite.
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)?
>An <interp> can be pointed to from any element, not just a seg. A <span>
>for example could be associated with one.
Of course, the <interp> can be point to from any element, but that element can't cross the hierarchy of the document as noted as the first restriction in the alternative practice of using the <seg> with a @type. This restriction seems to be only resolved using the <span> and <anchor> elements (<span> for the interpretation and <anchor> for marking the locations in the main text). Please let me know if I'm wrong.
I'm really grateful for the attention and comments and hope all a good year.