When you write “even in a interpretative transcription,” are you suggesting that there are transcriptions that are not interpretive? How do you distinguish them?
In my experience, you might try to preserve aspects of the document in your transcriptions or you might try to read the various texts within a document. Both of those acts are interpretive. What they interpret might be different things, but neither is more objective than the other. Or is there an underlying assumption that a transcription could ever be carried out without interpretation?
On 5 Feb 2014, at 08:11, James Cummings <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> That is entirely true -- however, would you imagine a <text> without the ability to mark <lb/> and <pb/>? I think it has those things because even in an interpretative transcription one wants to mark those features even though they are to do with the physical object. In a <sourceDoc> transcription one doesn't *want* to categorise something as a <list>, I'd argue. (e.g. if a list item goes over two lines it would be two <line> elements.) So having the limitation of physically-oriented elements in sourceDoc/zone (and I think there are already too *many* interpretative elements in there) makes sense, whereas it doesn't inside <text>. I think. Willing to be convinced otherwise though. ;-)
> Dr James Cummings, [log in to unmask]
> Academic IT Services, University of Oxford