LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  February 2014

TEI-L February 2014

Subject:

AW: [TEI-L] Embedded transcription and text structure

From:

Oliver Gasperlin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Oliver Gasperlin <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:14:55 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (141 lines)

I would prefer this not to be a decision between *you're doing either this or that* (or nothing, if you don't fit in one of those). Rather I would like to ask: What is my focus? What is my dominant markup? Genetic, topographic, semantic representation? Then I would still be able to add a couple of semantic features (like reference strings) in my documentary markup, without falling out of comliance with the main purpose.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Martin Holmes
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 14:49
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [TEI-L] Embedded transcription and text structure

I think one possible reason for the discomfort people feel at the
restrictions in <sourceDoc> is that <text>, for so long the only place
to put your transcription, does happily allow all sorts of arguably
non-textual features such as the milestones <pb/>, <lb/> and <cb/>,
among other things. It seems a little unfair that <text> provides
support for a lot of things which are arguably not in its domain, while
<sourceDoc> does not. That's historical, of course; we didn't have
<surface>, <zone> and friends until recently, and <sourceDoc> until even
more recently.

Imagining P6 for a moment: where would you go with this problem? Would
you clarify the distinction between hierarchies and purposes, by
reducing the features available in <text>, or would you loosen
<sourceDoc> so that it could contain more textual features?

Cheers,
Martin

On 14-02-05 05:27 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with either Sebastian or Peter. But I
> also think it's a bit of a misrepresentation to say that surface zone
> etc. are only useful for the encoding of genetic editions.
>
> They also provide the very generally useful ability to define a two
> dimensional grid and to map specific parts of your transcription to it.
> This facility was there of course long before the genetic workgroup
> started using it as well.
>
> And I can't think of any obvious or even non-obvious way of saying "this
> bit of text transcribes a block of text in the top right hand corner" or
> "this bit of text is written at right angles to the rest" without it.
> Good luck doing that with <lb/>.
>
>
>
> On 05/02/14 13:14, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Indeed, as Sebastian points out: this is really a case (yet again) of
>> the endemic difficulty XML (and its parent, SGML, and any system based
>> on the OHCO thesis) has with overlapping hierarchies.
>>
>> Agreeing twice with Sebastian in a single email: the long-known and
>> well-established system of using <text> with <pb/>, <cb/> and <lb/>
>> etc, remains available, and this will allow embedding of <list>,
>> <person>, <note>, etc, in all the usual places. And, as James points
>> out, we have decades of examples of ways of manipulating <pb/> and its
>> friends to create page-by-page, even line-by-line, views, as you
>> wish. Our own Textual Communities project takes this approach, and
>> builds mechanisms for viewing documents by both hierarchies
>> (page/column/line; text/div/p or l etc) right into its base.
>>
>> In my view, one of the problems here is that the wording and
>> presentation of the current chapter 11 of the Guidelines implies that
>> the system of <surface>, <zone> etc should be used for transcription
>> of ALL primary source materials. Thus its first sentence:
>>
>> "This chapter defines a module intended for use in the representation
>> of primary sources, such as manuscripts or other written materials. “
>>
>> In fact, this system is ideally suited for one rather narrow editorial
>> circumstance: the transcription of “genetic editions”, typically
>> (almost exclusively) or modern authorial manuscript materials, where
>> the exact representation of the writing process in a single document,
>> as a record of the author’s developing inscription of his work, is so
>> crucial as to trump every need. Thus the genesis of the surface/zone
>> system, in the work of the TEI workgroup on Genetic Editions, chaired
>> by Fotis Iannidis and with Elena Pierazzo a.o. among its members (see
>> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lou/wip/geneticTEI.doc.html). One might
>> presume that, encouraged by the Guidelines’ presentation of this
>> system as appropriate for ALL transcription circumstances, people are
>> using it to transcribe manuscripts, etc, which are not instances of
>> genetic editions — hence the repeated requests on this list for a
>> loosening of the content models for <line> etc.
>>
>> So, in contrast to Oliver’s feature request for a loosening of the
>> content model: I’d agree with the various arguments against this. I
>> don’t think the floodgates will open and civilization will drown if we
>> permit <rs> within model.linePart. But I do think people will tie
>> themselves up in knots trying to use a system devised for genetic
>> editions when transcribing (say) medieval manuscripts. The problem
>> would be considerably eased, I think, if the guidelines made it
>> clearer that the system described in Chapter 11 is really only to be
>> used in the specific circumstance for which it was devised: for
>> encoding of genetic editions. In addition, this chapter might also
>> point out (as it currently does not) that the system of text/pb/lb etc
>> is efficient and adequate for many transcription situations, and
>> particularly for projects which wish (as most do) to represent both
>> the intellectual structure of a text and the disposition of that text
>> in a document in a single encoding. Seems to me that this might be put
>> into a feature request.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 5 Feb 2014, at 06:31, Sebastian Rahtz <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Feb 2014, at 12:18, James Cummings <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/02/14 11:56, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>> I find it slightly surprising though that no-one has yet proposed
>>>>> permitting <surface>, <zone> and friends to appear within <text>
>>>>> as an alternative to <div>. That would seem a neater way of
>>>>> having your cake and eating it than any of the proposals so far
>>>>> made.
>>>> For some reason that worries me. Perhaps as a muddying of the waters
>>>> even further? It would require changing the content model of zone
>>>> significantly to make it useful, wouldn't it?
>>> I agree, just putting surface and zone into <text> generates a whole
>>> slew more problems than
>>> it solve. Anyway, we all_know_ there is no clean solution in XML to
>>> representing
>>> two hierarchies at the same time.
>>>
>>> the old method of interspersing your <text> with <milestone> elements
>>> (or its specialisations <pb>, <lb> etc)
>>> hasn’t gone away.
>>> --
>>> Sebastian Rahtz
>>> Director (Research) of Academic IT
>>> University of Oxford IT Services
>>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>>
>>> Não sou nada.
>>> Nunca serei nada.
>>> Não posso querer ser nada.
>>> À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.
>> Peter Robinson
>> Bateman Professor of English
>> #311, Arts Building, 9 Campus Drive, University of Saskatchewan
>> Saskatoon SK S7N 5A5, Canada
>> ph. (+1) 306 966 5491

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager