On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:02:51 +0000, Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On 30/12/12 06:26, Saeed Sarrafzadeh wrote:
>> 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
>Um, no. A heading, highlighting, etc. would not be considered as a
>modification of the text, so it would not get a @resp. It's a part of
>the text, which the encoder has identified.
> and any changes made after
>> that in the encoding may be encoded using the change element in the
>> revisionDesc part of the header.
>Again, not exactly : <change> is for logging any kind of update or
>significant stage in the preparation of the encoded text
>>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)?
>Yes, <note> is a good thing to use for this purpose, and @resp can be
>used with it to indicate who's responsible for the content of the
><note>. You would only use @hand if you were dealing with (say) a source
>in which there are handwritten annotations and you want to distinguish
>them. For example, in the typescript of T S Eliot's Wasteland, there are
>numerous corrections and comments, some in Eliot's own writing, others
>in Ezra Pound's. They might all be encoded as <add>, <del>, <note> etc.,
>with @hand indicating who wrote them.
>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?
>Why would you want to do that? But if you did, you'd have to put the
>markup inside an <add> or an <addSpan> with a @resp, I suppose.
> 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
>You might consider using the mark up for genetic editions here (which
>does use the <change> element).
> 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
>Hope I'm understanding your questions. If not, maybe you could describe
>a bit more about what your intended project is.
As I read the guidelines and viewing some works on tools related to that, especially designing some editors, etc. I've tried to draw a brief picture of use cases which the guidelines and tools can cover now and in future trends. I know that my picture may be completely erroneous and may be due to the fact that I'm really far from a correct understanding of the guidelines and beeing in a beginner level (if not below that!). I'm trying to share my picture with some masters like you (Lou) and that's the cause of some time-consuming disturbances here from me!
When I read the guidelines and through some contributions here in the list I noticed that the guideline writers had in mind a great project with some distinct phases of (for example) scanning, OCR-ing/typing, encoding for an existing document (in any physical format), or complete production an encoding of a new digital document. But I think that there may exist some other cases, especially when we face with some works that may be done after the first publication of a document or when some people want to write a document collaboratively. When a documet published in an scholar space, some of them may want to participate in the development of it toward a more clarified and understandable version, while keeping the source features and also marking the responsibility for every contribution. When some tools are developing for editing and contributing in TEI xml format, it may take a little time to take such cases into account. The same processes which take place regarding the text before encoding it (additions, deletions, notes, ...) may take place after encoding using some digital tools.
Even for some discussion take place in mailing lists or forums or so, we can adopt TEI as a tool for marking-up all assets and then enrich them more for better retreiving and finding.
I think that TEI may have good potential in this regard and what I want to understand the ways to do my own work in such a framework and suggesting others to use such ways in their work. And at the first step my attention inclined to the Lite customization of TEI as a good base for the beginning!
If we speak about the @hand attribute, it may drive our mind through a handwriting manuscript, but it may be abstracted as any contribution regarding text nodes directly (any alteration or addition of text nodes) and when we speak about the @resp attribute it may be used to record the responsibility for deciding about using an special element with special attributes to mark a feature in the text (not text node). So, if we think this way we should record the responsibility for the content of a note with @hand and the responsibility for the decision on that special part of text is a note not an addition to the text (or so) with a @resp. But when we come back to the guidelines we note that this picture is far from the reality! The guidelines proposed the @hand only for some special elements and not for others.
Also, it's some other problems with the Lite (in addition to the guidelines):
1. The att.transcriptional class which contains @hand counted as a class which is included in Lite without modification. In the documents related to class, I noted that it should point to a <handNote> element which is not included in Lite customization. Also, when I read its odd I couldn't find any part of it implying its inclusion (att.transcriptional) within the Lite.
2. The @calendar attribute seems to be included in Lite, which should point to a <calendar> element in the header in a <calendarDesc> element as its parent. Both elements are lacking in Lite.
Thanks a lot for spending time to consider my problems and your useful guides.
Best wishes, Saeed.